BL 


UC-NRLF 


UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


JANUS   IN    ROMAN    LIFE 
AND    CULT 

A  STUDY  IN  ROMAN  RELIGIONS 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FAC-TTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  IN 

PARTIAL  FULFILMEN^  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


BESSIE  REBECCA  BURCHETT 


OUT*  Collude  $I«B3 

GEORGE  BANTA  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

MENASHA,  WISCONSIN 

1918 


EXCHANGE 


UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


JANUS   IN    ROMAN    LIFE 
AND    CULT 

A  STUDY  IN  ROMAN  RELIGIONS 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  IN 

PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 
BESSIE  REBECCA  BURCHETT 


GEORGE  BANTA  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

MENASHA,  WISCONSIN 

1918 


' 


The  writer  wishes  to  express  her  sincere  thanks  to 
Professor  John  C.  Rolfe,  Professor  Walton  Brooks 
McDaniel,  Professor  Roland  G.  Kent,  Assistant  Profes- 
sor George  D.  Hadzsits  and  to  Dr.  E.  H.  Heffner  for 
their  kindly  criticism  and  advice  given  during  the 
preparation  of  this  thesis. 


INTRODUCTION 

In  the  bibliography  appended  to  this  thesis  are  presented  some 
of  the  works  consulted.  A  complete  list  of  the  books  dealing  with  the 
subject  would  be  far  too  large  to  include  in  so  short  a  work.  In  the 
footnotes  are  given  all  the  references  in  Latin  literature  to  Janus  and 
to  his  cult,  so  far  as  it  lay  in  the  power  of  the  author  to  compile  them. 
But  very  few  references  to  secondary  sources  are  given.  To  have  set 
forth  and  tried  to  uphold  or  to  refute  the  theories  of  others  would  have 
been  a  long  and  tedious  task,  and  would  merely  have  obscured  the  con- 
clusions which  the  writer  wished  to  deduce  from  the  original  material. 
Occasionally  such  references  are  made  for  the  sake  of  clearness,  and 
in  those  cases  mention  is  made  of  the  works  which  best  suited  the  pur- 
pose. 

The  writer  is  especially  indebted  to  the  works  of  Mr.  Grant  Allen, 
Professor  Carter,  Professor  W.  W.  Fowler,  Professor  Frazer,  and 
Professor  Wissowa. 

The  conclusions  reached  are,  for  the  most  part,  the  writer's  own, 
and  differ  in  some  respects  from  the  usually  accepted  ones.  However, 
in  the  chapters  on  the  "Janus  Geminus,"  on  the  "Relation  of  Janus 
to  Other  Deities"  and  on  "Miscellanies,"  will  be  found  little  that  is 
new.  These  chapters  are  inserted  merely  for  the  purpose  of  giving  a 
complete  view  of  the  Janus  cult.  The  theory  that  the  rex  sacrorum 
was  a  human  Jupiter  has  been  advanced  by  Mr.  Grant  Allen,  Dr.  A.  B. 
Cook,  Professor  Frazer  and  others.  It  remained  only  to  add  to  their 
arguments,  which  are  mostly  anthropological,  the  evidence  of  Roman 
literature,  and  to  carry  the  theory  to  the  conclusion  that,  if  a  human 
Jupiter,  the  rex  sacrorum  was  a  priest  of  Jupiter,  not  of  Janus,  as  has 
been  hitherto  maintained.  Furthermore,  original  passages  have  been 
given  as  evidence  that  this  belief  accords  with  the  character  and  ritual 
of  both  the  rex  sacrorum  and  of  the  god  Janus.  Evidence,  besides,  has 
been  presented  to  show  that  Jupiter  and  Janus  are  not  identical,  as 
some  have  thought  possible,  but  that  they  are  quite  different  deities. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION v 

CHAPTER  I.    THEORIES  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION 1 

The  Beginnings  of  the  Janus-Cult. 

Deification  of  the  dead;  Deification  of  kings;  Numina\  Janus  a  numen  of 

the  door-way;  Developed  into  a  god  of  war  and  of  generation. 

CHAPTER  II.    PRAYERS  AND  FORMULAS 6 

Salian  hymn;  Gate's  rustic  ritual;  Self-devotion;  Devoting  a  city  of  the 
enemy;  Song  of  the  Arvals;  Conclusion. 

CHAPTER  III.    THE  PLACE  OF  JANUS  AS  GOD  OF  BEGINNINGS -11 

Importance  of  a  good  beginning;  Examples  of  beginnings  for  which  Janus 
was  not  invoked;  The  first  month  of  the  year  originally  not  sacred  to  Janus; 
First  day  of  the  year;  The  Kalends;  Dawn;  Interpretation  of  some  passages 
on  which  has  been  based  the  theory  that  Janus  was  a  god  of  beginnings; 
Theories  advanced  by  the  Romans  explaining  the  position  of  Janus  at  the 
head  of  the  list  of  gods;  Explaining  the  place  of  January  at  the  beginning 
of  the  year;  Summary. 

CHAPTER  IV.     STATUES  OF  JANUS 27 

No  statues  of  deities  among  the  Romans  until  late;  The  statue  brought 
from  Egypt  by  Augustus;  The  statue  from  Falerii  and  the  Numa  statue; 
Janus  was  not  an  anthropomorphic  god,  but  an  arch. 

CHAPTER  V.    THE  CONNECTION  OF  JANUS  WITH  EARLY  COINAGE 30 

Theory  that  the  head  of  Janus  on  the  as  originated  in  the  conception  of 
Janus  as  a  door-god,  because  of  the  analogy  between  an  entrance  and  a  har- 
bor; More  probable  that  it  was  the  result  of  an  identification  of  Janus  with 
the  Greek  Hermes;  Portunus,  Tiberinus,  Volturnus. 

CHAPTER  VI.    JANUS  GEMINUS  AND  OTHER  JANUS-ARCHES  AND  TEMPLES 37 

Janus-Geminus,  the  true  representation  of  Janus;  Origin;  Dates  of  the 
closing  of  the  gates;  Site  and  appearance;  Ceremonies  in  connection  with; 
the  augurium  salutis;  I  anus,  Summus,  Imus,  and  Medius',  Other  lani; 
Temple  of  C.  Duilius. 

CHAPTER  VII.    THE  REX  SACRORUM 45 

Parallelism  between  the  worship  of  the  primitive  household  and  that  of  the 
state,  discrepancies  therein;  Incarnate  kings,  evidences  that  these  existed 
among  the  early  Romans;  Evidence  that  Jupiter  was  the  god  incarnated 
in  the  Roman  priest-king;  The  rex  sacrorum  a  priest  of  Jupiter;  Traditions 
about  the  establishment  of  the  body  of  priests  adduced  as  proof  of  this 
theory;  The  agonalia;  Other  gods  than  Janus,  who  lacked  priests;  Duties  and 
privileges  of  the  rex  sacrorum. 

CHAPTER  VIII.    RELATION  OF  JANUS  TO  OTHER  DEITIES 63 

1.  Jupiter;  2.  Saturn;  3.  Juno;  4.  Diana;  5.  Mater  Matuta;  6.  Ops  Con- 
siva;  7.  Carna. 

CHAPTER  IX.    MISCELLANIES 70 

1.  Inscriptions;  2.  Spolia  Opima\  3.  Circenses  of  January  Seventh. 

CONCLUSION 72 

Summary  of  the  development  of  the  characteristics  and  the  cult  of  Janus. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY  ....  73 


CHAPTER  I 

THEORIES  CONCERNING  THE  ORIGIN  OF  RELIGION 

The  Beginnings  of  the  Janus-Cult 

The  study  of  anthropology  and,  more  especially,  of  comparative 
religion  has  in  recent  years  brought  to  light  some  concepts  of  gods  so 
unlike  those  entertained  by  civilized  peoples  that  it  requires  no  little 
effort  to  adjust  the  mind  and  imagination  to  their  reception.  Various 
theories  have  been  put  forth  to  account  for  man's  first  conception  of 
divinity.  One  of  these  theories  Mr.  Grant  Allen  illustrates  by  an  anec- 
dote told  in  his  Evolution  of  the  Idea  of  God.1  Sir  Richard  Burton,  he 
says,  was  exploring  a  remote  Mohammedan  region  and,  in  order  to 
have  greater  freedom,  disguised  himself  as  a  fakir  of  Islam.  So  success- 
ful was  he  in  playing  the  part  of  holy  man,  that  he  inspired  in  the  people 
a  great  reverence  for  his  sanctity.  But  one  night  a  chief  of  the  village 
came  to  him  secretly  and  urged  him  to  flee,  if  he  valued  his  life.  The 
explorer  was  much  surprised  at  the  possibility  of  danger,  in  view  of  the 
influence  which  he  had  gained  among  the  superstitious  natives.  But  it 
was  this  very  religious  awe,  which,  as  the  friendly  chief  said,  was  the 
source  of  peril;  for  the  people  were  planning  to  slay  their  spiritual 
master  for  the  laudable  purpose  of  retaining  his  tomb  among  them  as  a 
shrine.  The  warning  gave  this  traveler  barely  time  to  escape  an  un- 
desirable apotheosis.  Whether  or  not  this  story  is  true  (and  Mr.  Allen 
refuses  to  vouch  for  it),  it  furnishes  a  good  illustration  of  the  process 
of  manufacturing  gods.  According  to  Mr.  Allen's  theory,  the  first 
deities  developed  from  dead  men,  of  whom  some  died  naturally,2  and 
some  were  slain  for  the  purpose  of  deifying  them.  Of  course  the  manu-  / . 
facturing  of  divinity  by  human  sacrifice  was  the  invention  of  a  later  »» 
civilization  than  was  the  simple  worship  of  men  who  had  died  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  nature.  Because  the  people  expected  to  receive 
benefits  from  the  deified  members  of  their  tribe,  the  thought  at  some 
time  entered  their  minds  that  it  might  be  advantageous  to  dispatch 
occasionally  to  the  powerful  company  of  spirits  a  special  representative 
from  among  the  living;  for,  on  account  of  his  recent  experience  of  their 

1  Allen  Evolution  of  the  Idea  of  God  p.  271. 
2Cf.  Cic.  N.  D.  1,  42,  119;  Cyprian.  Idol.  Van.  1. 


2.  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

need,  they  expected  him  to  make  a  greater  effort  on  their  behalf.  The 
good-will  of  the  intended  victim  they  could  easily  gain  beforehand  by 
bestowing  on  him  plentiful  gifts  and  honors.  Cases  are  actually  known 
of  persons  thus  indulged  departing  life  willingly  when  their  time  was  up. 
This  custom  merely  hastened  the  deification  of  those  who  were  poten- 
tially gods.  This  is  a  brief  view  of  Mr.  Allen's  theory  about  the  way  in 
which  gods  were  made. 

Professor  Frazer  gives  interesting  evidence  of  the  origin  of  a  second 
sort  of  divinity.  He  has  taken  as  the  starting  point  of  his  two  great 
works,  The  Golden  Bough  and  Lectures  on  the  Early  History  of  the  King- 
ship, the  strange  cult  in  the  grove  at  Nemi,  near  Aricia.  He  begins: 

"In  the  sacred  grove  there  grew  a  certain  tree  round  which a 

grim  figure  might  be  seen  to  prowl.  In  his  hand  he  carried  a  drawn 
sword,  and  he  kept  peering  warily  about  him  as  if  at  every  instant  he 
expected  to  be  set  upon  by  an  enemy.  He  was  a  priest  and  a  murderer; 
and  the  man  for  whom  he  looked  was  sooner  or  later  to  murder  him  and 
hold  the  priesthood  in  his  stead.  Such  was  the  rule  of  the  sanctuary.  A 

candidate could  succeed  to  office  only  by  slaying  the  priest.  .  . 

. . .  The  post  which  he  held  by  this  precarious  tenure  carried  with  it  the 
title  of  king.  "3  After  collecting  a  great  mass  of  evidence  for  the  existence 
of  customs  similar  to  this  among  many  different  tribes  and  nations  both 
of  the  past  and  of  the  present,  Professor  Frazer  comes  to  the  conclusion 
that  gods  developed  from  kings.  These  kings  were  originally  magicians 
whose  most  important  duty  was  that  of  controlling  the  weather  by 
sympathetic  magic.  The  magical  power  which  they  professed  to  exer- 
cise, often  making  the  claim  with  perfect  sincerity,  gradually  raised  them 
in  the  eyes  of  their  subjects  to  the  rank  of  gods.  They  were  propitiated 
with  gifts,  they  were  surrounded  with  taboos  and  other  safeguards  to 
their  divinity.  For,  if  they  were  well,  the  land  would  be  fruitful;  if 
they  were  injured,  vegetation  would  fail,  and  the  flocks  would  cease  to 
multiply.  It  was  in  accordance  with  this  line  of  reasoning  that  the 
people  conceived  the  strange  idea  of  slaying  their  king-gods  while 
they  were  still  in  the  prime  of  life,  so  that  their  successors  might  inherit 
the  divine  essence  unimpaired  by  old  age  or  disease.  In  some 
nations  their  rulers  seem  to  have  been  slain  at  stated  intervals;  in 
others,  whenever  circumstances  might  seem  to  require  it.  It  is  easily 

8  Frazer  Golden  Bough  1,  pp.  8  sqq.;  Cf.  Led.  on  Kingship,  Chapt.  1. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  3 

seen  that  the  two  theories,  those  of  Mr.  Allen  and  of  Professor  Frazer, 
overlap  to  some  extent,  since  in  both  cases  the  slain  victim  was  already, 
or  potentially,  a  deity. 

Another  theory  of  the  development  of  the  religious  sense,  one  better 
known  to  students  of  Roman  religion,  is  that  which  is  lucidly  and  con- 
veniently given  by  Professor  Carter  in  his  Religion  of  Numa.*  He 
supposes  that  in  very  remote  antiquity,  before  the  settlement  of  the 
Palatine,  the  primitive  Latins  conceived  of  all  the  objects  about  them 
as  animated  by  vague  spirits  or  numina.  These  were  not  personifica- 
tions, they  were  on  the  contrary,  so  intangible  as  to  lack  name  or  sex. 
Some  of  them,  however,  did  gain  name  and  personality,  partly  under 
Greek  influence,  and  so  attained  the  rank  of  deities. 

Several  factors,  therefore,  were  probably  at  work  in  the  creation 
of  the  Roman  gods.  Whether  the  three  sorts  came  into  existence  at  the 
same  time  or  at  different  times,  and  whether  side  by  side,  or  in  different 
localities,  is  hard,  perhaps  impossible,  to  determine.  Each  is,  at  any 
rate,  a  very  old  notion.  Among  divinities  of  the  first  sort  are  the 
Manes  who  came  from  deified  ancestors.  An  example  of  a  god  develop- 
ing from  an  incarnate  king  is  probably  Jupiter.5  And,  in  the  third  place, 
Janus  seems  to  have  joined  the  heavenly  hierarchy  after  having  been  the 
spirit  indwelling  in  a  material  thing,  the  door-way. 

Among  all  the  various  theories,  both  ancient  and  modern,  of  the 
origin  of  the  two-faced  god,  this  seems  to  be  the  one  most  favored. 
Evidence  for  its  truth  will  be  given  throughout  this  paper,  but,  as  a  pre- 
liminary, some  facts  may  be  cited  here.  Although,  under  the  influence  of 
Greek  philosophy,  Janus  became  a  great  cosmic  deity,  rivalling  Jupiter 
himself  as  a  world-god,  nevertheless  he  is  constantly  given  the  functions 
of  a  door,  or  of  a  door-keeper.6  He  is  represented  as  carrying  a  key,7  and 
in  mythology  he  is  associated  with  deities  so  obscure  as  Cardea,  the  \ 
spirit  of  the  door-hinge,  and  Limentinus,  of  the  threshold.8  It  seems  j 
hardly  probable  that  this  would  have  been  so,  if  there  had  not  been 
some  fundamental  connection  between  the  god  and  the  door.  Indeed, 

4  Carter  Relig.  of  Numa  pp.  5  sqq. 
6  See  /.  Chapt.  VII.    /  always  refers  to  this  thesis. 

"Lyd.  Mans.  4,  1;  Macrob.  1,  9,  2;  1,  9,  9;  Ov.  F.  1,  117-125;  1,  138-140;  Septim. 
Seren.  frg.  1,1. 

7Arnob.  6,  25;  Lyd.  Mens.  4,  1;  Ov.  F.  1,  99;  1,  228;  1,  254. 
8Tert.  Idol.   15;  Cor.  Mil.   13. 


4  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

some  of  the  noblest  attributes  assigned  to  him  by  poets  and  philosophers 
associate  him  with  entrances.9 

Now,  although  all  things  were  conceived  of  as  animated  by  vague 
spirits,  or  numina,  only  the  numina,  of  the  more  important  objects 
gained  any  prominence.  Among  these  were  the  door-way  and  the 
hearth.  The  door-way  was  a  strategic  point,  since  it  was  the  place  at 
which  attacks  from  foes  were  most  to  be  expected.  The  hearth  also  re- 
quired constant  care  in  primitive  times,  when  fire  was  difficult  to  obtain. 
The  numina  of  these  objects,  therefore,  became  more  holy  than  others, 
and  assumed,  in  time,  some  of  the  characteristics  of  their  chief  votaries. 
Thus,  the  fire  which  was  kept  by  the  daughters  of  the  house,  became  a 

»  female  deity,  Vesta;  and  the  door- way,  because  its  protector  was  a  man, 
became  a  god,  Janus.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  all  deities,  even 
among  the  Romans,  gained  their  sex  and  character  in  this  way;  but  in 
these  two  cases,  where  the  divinities  were  originally  so  evidently  with- 
out personality  and  where  there  seems  to  have  been  no  other  reason 
for  assigning  sex,  this  must  have  been,  at  least,  a  determining  factor.  A 
passage  in  St.  Augustine  is  a  good  illustration  of  the  feeling  that  male 
numina  presided  over  things  pertaining  to  men,  and  female  over  those 
pertaining  to  women:  Sed  cum  et  mares  et  feminae  habeant  pecuniam, 
cur  non  et  Pecunia  et  Pecunius  appellatus  sit,  sicut  Rumina  et  Ruminus, 
ipsi  viderint.10 

Janus,  then,  because  his  chief  worshiper  was  a  man,  became  a  male 
deity.  In  assuming  still  further  the  characteristics  of  his  principal 

(  votary,  he  became  a  god  of  generation.  As  such  he  had  the  cognomen 
pater,11  which  was  assigned  to  all  the  gods  who  were  concerned  with 

(  childbirth.  In  much  the  same  way  he  became  also jajgod  of  war.  For, 
as  time  went  on,  when  the  early  Romans  felt  the  need  of  divine  aid  for 
some  new  activity  of  life,  they  did  not  invent  a  new  deity,  but  turned 

9  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  7,  3;  7,  7;  Isid.  Etymol.  8,  11,  37;  Lyd.  Mens.  4,  1;  4,  2;  Macrob. 
1,  9,  9;  1,  9,  11;  Nemes.  Cyneg.  104-105;  Ov.  F.  1,  125;  1,  139;  Septim.  Seren.  frg. 
1,1. 

10  S.  Aug.  C,  D.  7,  11. 

11  Athen.  15,  46;  Cato  R.  R.  134;  CIL.  I,  p.  334;  382;  III,  2881;  3030;  3158;  VIII, 
2608;  4576;  VIII,  11797;  XI,  5374;  Cell.  5,  12,  3-5;  Hor.  Epist.   1,  16,  59;  Lucil. 
(Marx)  20-22;  Macrob.  1,  9,  15-16;  Mart.  8,  2,  8;  10,  28,  7;  Plin.  N.  H.  36,  5,  4,  28; 
Senec.  Apoc.  9;  Serv.  Aen.  8,  357;  Septim.  Seren.  frg.  1,  1;  Verg.  Aen.  8,  357;  Aurel. 
Viet.  Orig,  3,  7.   For  a  different  theory,  see  Tert.  Nat.  2,  11  and  Fowler  Relig.  Exp. 
pp.  155  sqq. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  5 

to  one  or  more  of  the  gods  whom  they  already  possessed.  This  is 
probably  one  reason  why  even  the  early  deities  overlap  in  their  func- 
tions to  so  great  an  extent.  When  the  primitive  Roman  went  to  war, 
he  invoked,  besides  the  numina  that  he  was  accustomed  to  worship, 
the  things  connected  with  this  activity:  the  fields  and  woods  through 
which  he  had  to  pass,  and  the  weapons  which  he  had  to  use.  The  spears 
and  shields  which  were  preserved  in  the  Regia  were  perhaps  relics  of 
this  ancient  worship  of  weapons.12  But  of  all  these  war  deities,  Mars 
gained  the  ascendancy,  and  became  so  important  in  this  later  capacity 
that  his  original  character  was  almost  forgotten;  Janus,  on  the  other  hand, 
ceased  to  be  worshiped  as  a  war  god.  Traces  of  his  warlike  character 
remained,  however,  in  his  cult  at  the  Janus  Geminus.13 

It  is  obvious  that  Janus  lost  his  preeminence  in  ritualistic  wor- 
ship, yet  his  importance  in  early  religion  is  proved  beyond  a  doubt  by 
the  fact  that  injiearly  all  rituals  rns_jiame  preceded  that  of  _other  deities, 
and  that  it  held  this  position  for  a  length  of  time  sufficient  to  make  it 
fixed  and  unchanged  throughout  the  whole  period  of  Roman  religion.14 

12  Dion,  of  Hal.  2,  71;  GeU.  4,  6,  1. 

13  7.  Chapt.  VI. 

14  /.  Chapt.  II. 


CHAPTER  II 

PRAYERS  AND  FORMULAS 

Among  the  religious  formulas  in  which  Janus  holds  an  important 
place  may  be  mentioned  the  most  ancient  piece  of  Latin  literature  extant, 
the  hymn  of  the  Salian  priests.  Janus  is  celebrated  in  a  set  of  verses 
called  lanuli.1  Varro  and  Quintilian  say  that  in  their  time2  the 
words  were  unintelligible  even  to  priests.  Varro  gives  them  as  follows: 
cozeulodorieso  omnia  vero  adpatula  coemisse  ian  cusianes  duonus 
ceruses  dunus  ianus  ve  vet  pom  elios  eum  recun.  divum  empta  cante, 
divum  deo  supplicante.3  Professor  Allen  in  his  Remnants  of  Early 
Latin  gives  the  "least  desperate"  of  the  lines  referring  to  Janus  thus: 

Divom  *  empta  cante,  divom  deo  supplicate, 

omina  vero 

adpatula  coemise  lani  cusianes: 
duonus  cerus  es,  duonus  Ianus.4 

Macrobius  says  that  Janus  is  called  deorum  deus  in  the  "most  ancient 
song  of  the  Salians.  "5  The  first  line,  therefore,  must  refer  to  Janus. 
The  other  three  lines  Professor  Allen  renders,  "The  curiones  of  Janus 
have  in  truth  perceived  clear  omens:  thou  art  the  good  creator,  good 
Janus."  In  Paulus-Festus  also  the  word  cerus  is  translated  creator.6 
Therefore  these  lines  include  Janus  among  the  gods  of  generation.  It 
is  to  be  noted  also  that,  at  the  remote  time  when  the  song  was  formulated, 
Janus  was  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  hailed  as  "god  of  gods." 

The  rustic  rituals  described  by  Cato  furnish  other  prayers  in  which 
Janus  holds  first  place.  This  hardy  old  advocate  of  the  simple  life 
prescribes  that  a  sacrifice  be  offered  to  Ceres  before  harvest.  Care- 
ful directions  are  given :  As  a  preliminary,  wine  and  incense  were  offered 
to  Janus,  to  Jupiter  and  to  Juno  with  prayers;  then  the  cakes  called 
strues  were  presented  to  Janus  with  the  petition  that  he  be  propitious 
mihi,  liberisque  meis,  domo,  familiaeque  meae.  Next  a  cake  called 

1  Fest.  3. 

2Quintil.  Instil.  Orat.  1,  6,  40;  Varro.  L.  L.  7,  2-3. 

3  Varro  L.  L.  7,  26-27. 

4  Allen  Remn.  of  Early  Lat.  p.  74. 
6Macrob.  1,9,  14. 

•  Fest.  122. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  7 

ferctum  was  offered  to  Jupiter  with  the  same  prayer.  Then  wine  was 
again  poured  out  to  Janus  and  to  Jupiter,  each  time  with  a  repetition 
of  the  formula.  At  length  the  pig  was  slain  in  honor  of  the  patiently 
waiting  Ceres.  After  that,  cakes  and  wine  had  to  be  presented  to  Janus 
and  to  Jupiter  in  the  same  order  as  before,  with  the  same  prayer.7  In 
the  ceremony  for  the  lustration  of  the  fields,  Cato  directs  that  the 
beasts  of  the  suovetaurilia  be  driven  around  the  plot  of  ground  to  be 
purified,  and  wine  be  offered  to  Janus  and  to  Jupiter,  the  prayer  being 
addressed  to  Mars  alone.8 

In  the  formula  for  self-devotion,  dewtio,  as  given  by  Livy,  Janus 
holds  the  first  place.9  But  in  the  formula  which  Macrobius  gives 
for  devoting  a  city  of  the  enemy,  his  name  is  not  mentioned.10  The 
prayer  of  the  fetial  priests,  when  demanding  restitution,  follows  two 
methods  of  procedure.  In  the  beginning  the  priests  invoked  Jupiter 
alone;  in  the  latter  part  of  the  formula  they  called  upon  Jupiter,  Janus 
and  Quirinus  by  name,  and  summed  up  the  other  gods  thus :  dique  omnes 

caelestes terrestres,  inferni.11  In  the  last  of  these  formulas 

it  is  noteworthy  that  Jupiter,  not  Janus,  comes  first.  The  reason  must 
be  that  the  fetial  priests,  when  using  the  formula,  were  acting  as  atten- 
dants of  Jupiter,  the  god  of  the  whole  Alban  people.  The  preeminence 
of  this  deity,  then,  was  due  to  his  importance  to  the  League.  His 
place  in  the  list  of  gods,  in  other  words,  was  determined  by  his  relation 
to  the  matter  in  hand. 

In  the  song  of  the  Arvals,12  which,  like  that  of  the  Salians,  had 
been  handed  down  from  remote  antiquity  by  word  of  mouth,  and  had 
very  probably  become  unintelligible  in  classical  times,  the  name  of  Janus 
does  not  appear.  He  had  a  place  however,  in  the  rites  of  the  brother- 
hood. Pliny13  and  Gellius14  give  the  information  that  the  order  was 
founded  by  Romulus.  The  priesthood  seems  to  have  been  devoted 

7  Cato  R.  R.  134. 

8  Cato  R.  R.  141. 
"Liv.  8,  9. 

10  Macrob.  3,  9,  9-10. 

11  Liv.  1,  32;  Polyb.  3,  25,  6;  (in  the  prayer  in  Verg.  Aen.  12,  176  sqq.,  Janus  does 
not  come  first,  but  it  is  to  be  noted  that  many  of  the  deities  are  Greek.     Cf .  Servius 
on  line  198.) 

12CLL.  I,  28;  VI,  2104,  11,  32-38;  Henzen  Act.  Frat.  Arv.  pp.  cciv;  26-27. 
"Plin.   N.   H.    18,   2,   6. 
14  Cell.  7,  7. 


8  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

originally  to  the  service  of  the  Dea  Dia,  and  the  ceremonies  appear 
to  have  concerned  the  fertility  of  the  fields.15  After  having  fallen  into 
decay  during  the  late  republic,  and  having  been  revived  by  Augustus, 
the  brotherhood  took  upon  itself  the  duty  of  offering  prayers  and  sacri- 
fices for  the  safety  of  the  emperor,  of  his  family  and  of  the  whole  state. 
They  met  for  this  purpose  on  different  occasions,  such  as  the  birthday 
of  the  emperor,16  or  of  one  of  his  family,17  on  his  return  from  a  journey,18 
and  annually  on  January  third.19  Their  principal  meeting  place  was 
the  grove  of  Dea  Dia  outside  Rome.  In  this  grove  have  been  found 
some  of  the  "minutes  of  their  meetings"  carved  in  stone.20  From  these 
inscriptions  comes  most  of  the  information  about  the  priests  and  their 
ceremonies.  The  fullest  account  of  their  ritual  is  in  the  Acta  of  the 
time  of  Elagabalus,  about  218  A.D.  21  The  ancient  nature  of  the  cult 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that,  when  iron  was  brought  into  the  grove,  to  prune 
trees,  or  to  cut  inscriptions,  a  piacular  sacrifice  had  to  be  made.22  On  the 
occasion  of  an  offering  of  this  sort,  or  of  one  made  to  avert  an  evil  omen, 
such  as  the  falling  of  a  tree,23  the  deities  invoked  were  the  regular  state 
gods,  beginning  with  Janus  and  ending  with  Vesta.  But  the  name  of 
Dea  Dia  herself  preceded  the  whole  list.  She  must  have  held  this  im- 
portant place  because  the  sacrifice  was  held  in  her  grove  and  in  her 
honor,  just  as  Jupiter  took  precedence  of  the  other  gods  in  the  ritual 
which  concerned  the  whole  Alban  people.  When,  however,  the  priests 
made  a  vow,  or  performed  a  sacrifice,  for  the  emperor,  they  invoked 
the  triad  Jupiter,  Juno  and  Minerva,24  and  sometimes  the  Genius  of  the 
emperor,25  the  Juno  of  the  empress,26  and  such  late  abstractions  as 

18  Varro  L.  L.  5,  85;  Fowler  Rom.  Fest.  pp.  74;  105;  Henzen  Act.  Frat.  Arv.  pp. 
i-ix;  Wissowa  Relig.  u.  Kult.  pp.  143,  195,  562. 

18  CIL.  VI,  2025,  a,  I,  line  1;  2030,  lines  22-24;  2041,  line  30. 
17  CIL.  VI,  2024  f.,  line  3;  2041,  line  16. 

18C7Z.   VI,   2042,   line   26. 

19  CIL.  VI,  2025,  lines  13  sqq.;  2028,  lines  1-15;  2040,  lines  13-22;  2041,  lines 
35-48. 

20C7L.  VI,  2023-2119; 
nCIL.  VI,  2104. 

™CIL.  VI,  2068  column  2,  lines  37-38;  2104,  lines  40-42;  2107,  lines  24-25;  (Cf. 
Macrob.  5,  19,  13;  Serv.  Aen.  1,  448). 

™CIL.  VI,  2028,  c,  lines  21-23;  2053,  lines  14-21. 
"CIL.  VI,  2037,  line  9;  2039,  lines  8-9. 
25  CIL.  VI,  2037,  line  10;  2043,  II,  line  10. 
*CIL.   VI,   2043,   II,   line    10. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  9 

Salus,27  Victoria,28  and  Pax.29  Dea  Dia  was  occasionally  named  after 
Jupiter,  Juno  and  Minerva,30  but  often  she  was  left  out  altogether,31 
even  though  the  priesthood  and  the  grove  in  which  they  met  were  hers. 
Here,  again,  the  order  in  which  the  deities  were  invoked  was  determined 
by  their  relative  importance  to  the  ceremony.  In  the  ritual  of  emperor- 
worship  Jupiter  preceded  the  other  gods,  probably  because  the  deifying 
of  the  emperor  was  a  strange  reversion  to  the  cult  of  the  human  Jupiter.32 
With  him  were  associated  the  two  goddesses  of  the  Etruscan  triad,  and 
other  deities  who  were  especially  connected  with  the  emperor.  The 
cult  of  the  Fratres  Arvales,  as  revealed  in  these  inscriptions,  seems  to 
show  a  grafting  of  the  worship  of  the  human  Jupiter  upon  that  of  the 
Dea  Dia.  In  the  branch  of  the  cult  concerned  with  the  emperor,  Jupiter 
and  his  group  of  deities  are  worshiped  almost  exclusively;  in  the  part 
concerned  with  the  Dea  Dia,  Janus  occupies  his  usual  position,  heading 
the  list  of  gods.  But  the  list  itself  is  preceded  by  the  name  of  Dea  Dia, 
who  is  the  important  factor  in  the  ritual.33 

To  sum  up,  then,  the  name  of  Janus  regularly  preceded  that  of  other 
gods.  And  when  a  sacrifice  was  performed  to  any  deity,  a  preliminary 
offering  was  usually  made  to  Janus.  Ovid  expressly  mentions  this  fact: 

Cur,  quamvis  aliorum  numina  placem, 

lane,  tibi  primum  tura  merumque  fero?34 

When  another  deity  than  Janus  comes  first,  the  changed  order  is  due 
to  some  peculiar  importance  of  that  deity  to  the  particular  rite.  Janus 
must  have  gained  this  precedence  because  of  his  importance  to  all 
Roman  ritual  at  the  time  when  the  religion  was  crystallizing. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  name  of  Vesta  was  regularly  placed  at  the 
end  of  a  complete  list.  To  account  for  this  the  Romans  fabricated  many 
theories  which,  needless  to  say,  cannot  be  used  as  evidence  without 
careful  sifting.  The  explanation  most  readily  occurring  to  their  minds 
was  an  analogical  one.  Janus  is  the  door,  and  Vesta,  the  hearth,  there- 

27  CIL.  VI,  2039,  line  9. 

28C7L.  VI,  2051,  line  38. 

™CIL.  VI,  2044,  line  12. 

30  CIL.  VI,  2028. 

31C/Z,  VI,  2041,  lines  4-48;  2042,  lines  1-16. 

32 /.  Chapt.  VII. 

33  Cf.  CIL.  VIII,  S.  11797  and  note. 

34  Ov.  F.  1,  171-172;  cf.  Serv.  Aen.  1,  292;  /.  p.  58. 


10  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

fore  Janus  is  invoked  first  and  Vesta  last.35  Janus  has  charge  of  entran- 
ces, therefore  he  is  used  as  passage-way  to  the  other  gods.36  He  comes 
first  because  he  is  the  god  of  generation,37  or  because  he  is  the  inventor 
of  speech.38  The  variety  of  reasons  given  shows  that  they  were  simply 
made  up  to  account  for  a  phenomenon  not  understood.  The  conclu- 
sion may  be  drawn,  however,  after  considering  the  rituals  here  mentioned, 
that  Janus  did  not  occupy  his  position  at  the  head  of  some  formulas, 
because  he  was  god  of  beginnings,  any  more  than  did  Jupiter  and  Dea 
Dia  hold  a  similar  position  in  other  formulas  because  they  were  deities 
of  beginnings,  nor  any  more  than  did  Vesta  have  her  place  at  the  end 
of  prayers  because  she  was  goddess  of  endings.  The  true  explanation 
must  be  that  because  of  their  relative  importance  in  respect  to  the  other 
deities  Janus  came  to  hold  the  first  place,  and  Vesta,  the  place  next  in 
importance,  the  last.  A  few  recitations  of  a  prayer,  at  the  time  when 
religion  was  in  the  formative  period,  would  serve  to  fix  the  order.  When 
once  it  had  become  established,  religious  conservatism,  which  was 
especially  strong  among  the  Romans,  would  require  that  it  be  kept. 
Indeed,  the  order  of  service  became  so  stereotyped  that  calling  on  Janus 
and  Vesta  became  a  synonym  for  praying.39  It  will  be  necessary  to 
consider  this  subject  further  in  the  following  Chapter. 

35  Cic.  N.  D.  2,  27,  67. 

38  Macrob.  1,  9,  9;  Ov.  F.  1,  171-174. 

37  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  7,  2. 

38  Serv.  Aen.  7,  610. 

39  Juv.  6,  386;  Hor.  Epist.  1,  16,  59.    cf.  Arnob.  3,  29;  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  4,  23;  /. 
Chapt.  VII,  pp.  57-59. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  PLACE  OF  JANUS  AS  GOD  OF  BEGINNINGS 
In  modern  works  on  mythology,  Janus  is  commonly  described  as  a 
god  of  beginnings.  One  quotation  will  illustrate  this  view.  Mommsen 
says:  "The  facts,  that  gates  and  doors  and  the  morning  (I anus  matutinus) 
were  sacred  to  lanus,  and  that  he  was  always  invoked  before  any  other 
god  and  was  even  represented  in  the  series  of  corns  before  Jupiter  and 
the  other  gods,  indicate  unmistakably  that  he  was  the  abstraction  of 
opening  and  beginning.  "l  It  is  the  purpose  of  this  Chapter  to  show  that 
in  no  ritual  was  Janus  worshiped  as  god  of  beginnings.  It  is  true  that 
originally  he  was  the  numen  of  the  door-opening,2  and  in  the  conventional 
list  of  deities  he  came  first.3  But  neither  of  these  facts  makes  him  a 
god  of  beginnings. 

There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  Romans  did  consider  a  good 
beginning  of  great  importance.    Ovid  has  the  statement, 
Omina  principiis inesse  solent.4 

This  line  is  put  in  the  mouth  of  Janus,  but,  nevertheless,  he  claims 
for  himself  no  honors  at  the  beginnings  of  undertakings;  he  gives  this 
statement  only  as  a  reason  why  propitious  words  are  to  be  spoken  on 
New  Year's  Day,  and  makes  the  further  explanation, 

Ad  primam  vocem  timidas  advertitis  aures.6 

These  lines  simply  refer  to  the  well-known  fact  that  the  first  words  of 
an  oracle  and  the  first  birds  of  an  omen  meant  more  than  any  which 
followed.  In  accordance  with  this  view,  if  a  sacrifice  proved  unsatis- 
factory, or  the  victim  escaped,  and  a  second  offering  had  to  be  made, 
the  omen  was  never  considered  so  bright  as  when  the  first  sacrifice  turned 
out  favorably.  It  was,  therefore,  a  euphemism  to  call  the  second  victim 
melior  hostia*  Another  example  of  the  importance  of  a  good  beginning 
is  found  in  the  custom  of  lifting  a  bride  over  the  threshold  of  her  new 
home.  To  stumble  on  the  threshold  at  any  time  was  unfortunate,  to 

1  Mommsen  Hist.  I,  p.  213,  note;  cf.  Carter  Relig.  Life  of  Anc.  Rome.  p.  10 

2/.  Chapt.L 

3  /.  Chapt.  II. 

4Ov.  F.  1,  178;  cf.  Ov.  F.  1,  187-188. 

6  Ov.  F.  1,179. 

'  Verg.  Aen.  5,  483.  cf.  however,  Servius'  note  on  this  passage. 


12  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

do  so  when  entering  for  the  first  time  was  calamitous.  But,  in  spite 
of  this  common  belief,  there  is  no  case  on  record  of  an  invocation  to  Janus 
at  the  beginning  of  married  life.  Evidently,  in  matrimonial  affairs,  at 
least,  his  intervention  was  not  considered  essential  to  a  good  beginning. 
In  this,  as  in  other  ceremonies,  he  would  be  invoked  first,  if  the  prayer 
was  offered  to  the  regular  state  deities.  His  aid  was  not,  however, 
sought  for  the  beginning,  but  he  was  called  upon  first  because  the  first 
place  in  the  list  of  gods  was  his  by  long-established  custom.  As  another 
example  may  be  cited  the  incident  in  Livy  22,  3,  11-12.  Flaminius  was 
thrown  from  his  horse  before  an  engagement  with  the  enemy.  His 
soldiers  were  terrified,  velut  foedo  omine  incipiendae  rei.  In  spite, 
however,  of  this  terror  at  the  ill-omened  beginning,  there  is  no  account 
given  of  an  appeal  to  Janus  to  make  the  next  starting  more  propitious. 
If  Janus  were  god  of  beginnings,  some  mention  of  his  lack  of  favor 
would  be  expected  in  such  instances  as  these. 

If  he  had  been  patron  of  commencement,  there  are  other  situations, 
too,  in  which  he  would  necessarily  have  to  figure.  For  instance,  in  that 
case,  he  ought  to  have  been  patron  of  the  first  of  the  arbitrary  divisions 
of  time:  sacrifices  in  his  honor  would  be  looked  for  at  dawn,  on  the 
first  day  of  the  new  year,  and  on  the  first  day  of  each  month;  and  the 
first  month  of  the  year  would  be  sacred  to  him.  None  of  these  things 
was  true.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  in  the  old 
Roman  calendar  the  first  month  was  sacred,  not  to  Janus,  but  to  Mars.7 
In  153  B.C.  the  consuls  began  to  enter  upon  their  office  in  January,  and, 
because  the  years  were  designated  by  consuls,  it  became  customary  to 
consider  January  the  first  month  of  the  year.8  But  the  religious  year 
continued  to  be  reckoned  from  the  first  of  March.  The  order  of  months, 
then,  was  certainly  not  due  to  the  character  of  Janus.  It  might  almost 
be  said  to  have  been  by  accident  that  the  month  called  by  his  name 
came  to  be  the  first. 

As  for  January  first,  Macrobius  thought  that  it  was  a  day  sacred 
to  Janus,  he  said  that  men  invoked  him  lunonium  quasi  non  solum 

7Auson.  Eclog.  376,  3;  377,  5-6;  Paulus-Fest.  150;  Lyd.  Mens.  1, 16;  Macrob. 
1,  12,  3;  1,  15,  18;  Ov.  F.  1,  27-44;  2,  47-54;  3,  75-154;  4,  25-26;  5,  423-424;  Plut. 
Numa  18;  19;  Q.  R.  19;  Serv.  Georg.  1,  43;  1,  217;  Solin.  1, 34-40;  Varro  L.  L.  6,  33-34. 

8  Fowler  Rom.  Fest.  p.  33;  (Fowler  does  not  admit  that  the  month  of  January 
was  certainly  named  for  Janus). 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  13 

mensis  lanuarii  sed  mensium  omnium  ingressus  tenentem.9  He  seems 
to  be  taking  this  for  granted,  basing  his  opinion  on  the  name  only.  But 
at  any  rate,  he  mentions  no  offering  to  Janus.  The  Praenestine  Calen- 
dar notes  a  sacrifice  to  Vediovis  and  to  Aesculapius  on  the  first  of  Janu- 
ary.10 In  the  private  celebration  of  the  day  the  exchange  of  gifts  was 
an  important  feature.11  These  presents  had  nothing  to  do  with  Janus. 
Their  very  name  strenae  seems  to  have  been  taken  from  another  deity, 
Strenia.12  Ovid  says  that  the  sweetmeats  which  formed  a  large  part 
of  the  gifts  were  intended  to  make  the  whole  year  pleasant.13  This 
custom  was  in  accordance  with  the  belief  that  the  beginning  of  anything 
determined  the  character  of  the  whole.14  On  this  theory,  also,  was 
based  the  caution  to  speak  only  words  of  good  omen  on  the  first  day 
of  the  year.15  For  the  same  reason,  some  part  of  the  daily  tasks  was 
performed,  although  this  was  a  festal  day,  in  order  to  secure  industry 
throughout  the  year.16  In  all  this  Janus  had  no  part.  In  the  stately 
ceremonies  of  inaugurating  the  new  consuls,  as  Ovid  describes  them, 
incense  was  burned,  a  procession  of  men  in  white  ascended  the  Capitol, 
and  white  bullocks,  whose  necks  had  never  felt  a  yoke,  were  sacrificed 
to  Jupiter.17  Lydus  says  that  the  consul,  dressed  in  white  and  riding 
a  white  horse,  led  the  procession  to  the  Capitol.  After  sacrificing 
his  horse  to  Jupiter,  he  donned  the  toga  consularis,  and  departed.18 
Jupiter  is  the  god  here  honored.  It  is  doubtful  whether  Janus  had  even 
his  conventional  place  at  the  head  of  the  list  of  gods  invoked;  for  it 
is  quite  possible  that  the  deities  concerned  with  this  ceremony  were  the 
Capitoline  triad — Jupiter,  Juno  and  Minerva.  This  trinity  seems  to 
belong  to  a  different  category  from  the  list  of  divinities  which  began  with 
Janus  and  ended  with  Vesta.19 

9  Macrob.  1,  9,  16. 

l°CIL.  I,  p.  312. 

"Mart.  8,  33,  11-12;  13,  27;  Ov.  F.  1,185-186. 

12  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  4,  11;  4,  16;  Paulus-Fest.  293;  Lyd.  Mens.  4,  4  says  that  the 
strena  were  laurel  leaves  used  in  honor  of  a  goddess  of  the  name,  who  was  a  Victory. 

13  Ov.  F.  1,185-188. 

14  7.  pp.  11-12. 
14  Ov.  F.  1,175. 
"Ov.F.  1,165-170. 

17  Ov.F.  1,71-88. 

18  Lyd.  Mens.  4,  3. 

19  Cf.  /.  pp.  7-10. 


14  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

The  name  of  Janus,  as  has  been  seen,  is  not  mentioned  in  the  accounts 
of  the  private  or  of  the  public  celebrations  of  New  Year's  Day.  If, 
even  at  some  remote  time,  Janus  had  had  any  sacrifice  on  the  first  day 
of  his  own  month,  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  it  would  have  been 
so  completely  obscured  by  these  later  ceremonies  as  to  have  been  lost 
even  to  memory.  In  this  case,  silence  is  almost  equivalent  to  proof  of 
non-existence. 

Nevertheless,  the  dignified  ceremonies  connected  with  the  inaug- 
uration of  the  new  officers  gave  a  peculiarly  patriotic  and  religious 
significance  to  the  first  day  of  the  year,  and  this  reflected  back  to  Janus, 
because  his  name  was  attached  to  the  month.  The  character  of  this 
association  can  be  examined  in  the  following  passages.  Ovid  has  the 
line, 

Ecce  tibi  faustum,  Germanice,  (lanus)  nuntiat  annum.20 

Germanicus  is  about  to  enter  upon  his  consulship  on  the  first  of  January, 
therefore  Janus  was  said  to  announce  to  him  the  opening  of  the  year. 
In  Statius,  Sihae  4,  1,  2  Germanicus  opens  the  year, 
Insignemque  aperit  Germanicus  annum, 

and  in  4,  2,  60-61  the  same  flatterer  hopes  that  Domitian  may  often  so 
usher  in  the  new  year,  and  salute  Janus, 

saepe  annua  pandas 

Limina,  saepe  novo  lanum  lictore  salutes. 

Claudianus   makes   Janus   open   the   year, 

lamque  novum  fastis  aperit  felicibus  annum.21 

So  either  the  new  consul,  whose  name  will  be  used  to  fix  the  date,  or 
Janus,  whose  month  begins  all  years,  may  be  celebrated  by  the  poets  as 
the  opener  of  the  year. 

Martial  represents  Janus  as  the  bes tower  of  the  honors  assumed  on 
the  first  of  his  month,  in  8,  66,  11-12, 

Quorum  pacificus  ter  ampliavit 
lanus  nomina, 

and  in  11,  4,  5-6, 

Et  qui  purpureis  iam  tertia  nomina  fastis, 
lane,  refers  Nervae. 

20  Ov./?.  1,  63. 

21  Claudian.  VI  Cons.  Hon.  28,  640. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  15 

lanus  is  here  little  more  than  a  personification  of  lanuarius  mensis. 
The  following  lines,  which  Janus  is  represented  as  saying  to  Domitian 
might  seem,  if  taken  alone,  to  give  the  name  of  the  deity  a  deeper  re- 
ligious significance: 

Salve,  magne  parens  mundi,  qui  saecula  mecum 
instaurare  paras:  talem  te  cernere  semper 

mense  meo  tua  Roma  cupit 

da  gaudia  fastis 

continua.22 

but,  on  comparison  with  the  foregoing,  they  may  be  paraphrased  thus: 
"You  and  I  open  the  year.  Rome  desires  always  to  see  you  assume 
the  consulship  in  my  month."  The  connection  between  Janus  and 
the  ceremonies  of  January  first  may  be  still  further  illustrated  by  these 
lines  from  the  Carmina  Tria  de  Mensibus: 

Hie  lani  mensis  sacer  est:  en  aspice  ut  aris 

tura  micent,  sumant  ut  pia  liba  Lares. 
Annorum  saeclique  caput,  natalis  honorum 

purpureos  fastis  qui  numerat  proceres.23 

which  may  mean,  "This  is  the  sacred  month  of  January — sacred  because 
of  the  ceremonies.  January  is  the  beginning  of  the  year,  because  the 
purple-clad  chiefs  date  their  office  from  that  month."  Although 
Janus  is  used  here  only  as  a  personification  of  his  month,  yet  some  sanc- 
tity is  reflected  to  the  god  himself  from  the  ceremonies  of  the  day.  From 
the  lines  just  quoted,  it  seems  evident  that  Fastorum  genitor  paremque2* 
means  only,  "Janus,  i.  e.  January,  is  the  beginning  of  the  year,  a  fact 
to  be  emphasized  by  patriotic  Romans,  because  the  consuls  assumed,  or 
renewed,  office  on  January  first."  And  Annorum  nitidique  sator  pul- 
cherrime  mundt25  has  about  the  same  significance. 

In  Nemesianus,  Cynegetica  104-105  the  connection  is  still  more  clear, 

cum  lanus,  temporis  auctor, 

Pandit  inocciduum  bissenis  mensibus  aevum. 

Ausonius,  in  a  poem  celebrating  his  own  consulship,  calls  the  year 
itself  "father  of  events,"  that  is,  "father  of  dates." 

22  Stat.  Sttv.  4,  1,  17-21. 

23  Bahrens  Poet.  Lot.  Min.  I,  p.  206,  12,  1-4. 

24  Mart.  8,  2,  1. 
"Mart.  10,  28,  1. 


16  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

Anne,  pater  rerum,26 
In  the  following  lines  Janus  is  the  beginner  of  the  year  in  the  same  sense, 

Ergo  ubi,  lane  biceps,  longum  reseraveris  annum.27 
Nee  tu  dux  mensum,  lane  biformis,  eras,28 
Primus  Romanas  ordiris,  lane,  Kalendas,29 

When  the  word  lanus  is  used  as  it  is  here,  it  is  difficult  to  determine 
whether  there  is  any  reference  to  the  god  himself,  beyond  the  personi- 
fication of  his  month.  In  the  following,  lanus  has  no  significance  at  all 
except  as  it  means  the  month. 

Possidet  hunc  lani  sic  dea  mense  diem,30 
lanus  finem  habet.31 

The  month  of  December  is  also  personified  in, 

(Decembris) Poteras  non  cedere  lano, 

Gaudia  si  nobis  quae  dabit  ille  dares.32 

Ausonius,  in  Eclogue  378,  4,  uses  the  names  both  of  Janus  and  of  Mars, 
in  place  of  the  names  of  their  months, 

lani  Martisque  Kalendis. 

The  same  process  of  personification  is  in  force  when  Ovid  says  to  Janus 
tuis  Kalendis™  That  these  words  do  not  imply  that  all  Kalends  were 
sacred  to  Janus,  but  that  they  simply  give  the  date  as  January  first,  is 
made  still  more  certain  by  the  fact  that  the  same  words  are  used  by 
Tibullus  when  addressing  Mars, 

Sulpicia  est  tibi  culta  tuis,  Mars  magne,  Kalendis.34 

The  preceding  argument  as  to  the  extent  to  which  Janus  was  leader 
of  the  procession  of  time,  can  be  strengthened  by  another  bit  of  evi- 
dence. The  line  quoted  above, 

^Auson.  Edyl.  9,  333,  5. 
27  Ov.  Pont.  4,  4,  23. 
2*  Ov.  F.  5,  424. 
29Auson.  Eclog.  376,  1. 

30  Mart.  7,  8,  5-6. 

31  Ov.  F.  1,  586. 

32  Ov.  F.  2,  1. 

33  Ov.  F.  1,  175. 
"Tibull.  4,  2,  1. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  17 

lamque  novum  fastis  aperit  felicibus  annum35 

may  be  compared  with  Georgics  1,  217-218,  where  Vergil  uses  the  same 
expression  of  the  constellation  Taurus,  the  rising  of  which  on  March 
first  marks  the  beginning  of  the  farmer's  year, 

Candidus  auratis  aperit  cum  cornibus  annum 
Taurus. 

Janus,  who  opened  the  year  in  the  passage  from  Claudianus,  was  no 
more  a  god  of  beginnings  than  was  Taurus,  in  the  line  from  Vergil. 
Both  lines  are  poetic  ways  of  saying  "the  year  begins." 

It  is  generally  supposed  that  the  first  day  of  each  month  was  sacred 
to  Janus.36  It  has  just  been  seen  that  such  expressions  as  tuis  Kalendis 
can  not  be  taken  as  evidence  for  this  belief.  There  are,  however,  two 
passages  on  which  this  theory  might  be  based.  Macrobius  asserts 
(invocamus)  lunonium  quasi  non  solum  mensis  lanuarii  sed  mensium 
omnium  ingressus  tenentem;  in  dicione  autem  lunonis  sunt  omnes 
Kalendae,  unde  et  Varro  libro  quinto  Rerum  Divinarum  scribit  lano 
duodecim  aras  pro  totidem  mensibus  dedicatas.37  Lydus  quoted  Varro 
for  the  statement  that  a  kind  of  cake  was  offered  to  Janus  on  the  Kalends.38 
Nowhere  else  but  in  these  two  passages  is  Janus  made  the  god  of  the  Kal- 
ends. It  is  to  be  noted  that  Macrobius  mentions  no  offering  to  Janus, 
nor  any  ritual  performed  in  his  honor.  The  passage  in  Lydus  is  the  only 
reference  to  any  kind  of  offering  to  Janus  on  that  day  (except  as  he 
might  appear  in  his  conventional  place  at  the  head  of  the  list  of  gods). 
It  may  be  that  Lydus  is  quoting  Varro  only  for  the  first  part  of  his 
statement  and  he  may  be  adding  "the  Kalends"  of  his  own  accord,  for 
the  other  passages  which  mention  the  cake  say  nothing  about  an  offer- 
ing of  it  on  this  day.39  At  any  rate,  Lydus,  a  late  Greek  writer,  full 
of  fanciful  allusions,  is  no  very  reliable  authority  on  Roman  religion. 
It  is  evident  that  Macrobius  puts  Janus  in  charge  of  the  Kalends  only 

35  Claudian.  VI  Cons.  Hon.  28,  640:  other  passages  in  which  I  anus  is  used  for 
lanuarius  are:  Auson.  Eclog.  375,  6;  381,  6;  382,  1;  Edyl.  8,  332  passim;  Epist.  19, 
409,  7-8;  Mart.  9,  1,  1-2;  10,  41,  1;  12,  31,  4;  13,  27 '.  1 'anus  is  used  in  the  plural  to  mean 
recurring  consulships:  Auson.  Epigr.  147,  7,  Tu  quoque  ventures  per  longum  consere 
lanos.  Cf.  Auson.  Epist.  20,  410,  13. 

38  Wissowa  Relig.  u.  Kult.  p.  103. 
37Macrob.  1,  9,  16. 

3<*Lydus  Mens.  4,  2. 

39  CIL.  1,  p.  312;  Paulus-Fest.  104;  cf.  /.  pp.  41-42. 


18  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

as  a  means  of  explaining  the  epithet  Junonius.  In  another  passage  he 
explains  it  by  analogy:  a  qua  etiam  lanum  lunonium  cognominatum 
diximus,  quod  illi  deo  omnis  ingressus,  huic  deae  cuncti  Kalendarum 
dies  videntur  adscripti.40  This  quotation  certainly  does  not  convey 
the  impression  that  the  Kalends  were  sacred  to  Janus,  any  more  than 
entrances  were  to  Juno.  Servius  says  that  Janus  had  the  title  Junonius 
because  Juno  once  opened  the  gates  of  war,41  and  Lydus,  because  he 
is  the  air.42  A  comparison  of  these  passages  shows  that  they  are  nothing 
but  guesses  made  to  explain  the  epithet,  and  that  they  are  useless  as 
evidence  for  the  character  of  the  god.43 

Of  the  ritual  of  the  first  day  of  the  month,  both  Varro  and  Macro- 
bius  give  full  accounts,  which  it  is  worth  while  to  quote.  In  Varro, 
Lingua  Latino,  6,  27,  we  find,  Primi  dies  mensium  nominati  Kalendae, 
quod  his  diebus  calantur  eius  mensis  Nonae  a  pontificibus,  quintanae  an 
septimanae  sint  futurae,  in  Capitolio  in  Curia  Calabra  sic  dicto  quin- 
quies  Kalo  luno  Covella,  septies  dicto  Kalo  luno  Covella.  Macrobius 
1,  15,  9-10  gives  a  fuller  account,  Priscis  ergo  temporibus  antequam  fasti 
a  Cn.  Flavio  scriba  invitis  Patribus  in  omnium  notitiam  proderentur, 
pontifici  minori  haec  provincia  delegabatur  ut  novae  lunae  primum 
observaret  aspectum  visamque  regi  sacrificulo  nuntiaret.  Itaque  sacri- 
ficio  a  rege  et  minore  pontifice  celebrato  idem  pontifex  calata,  id  est 

vocata,  in  Capitolium  plebe  iuxta  Curiam  Calabram quot 

numero  dies  a  Kalendis  ad  Nonas  superessent  pronuntiabat.  Later  on, 
when  treating  of  the  rites  of  Juno,  the  same  author  says :  Romae  quoque 
Kalendis  omnibus,  praeter  quod  pontifex  minor  in  Curia  Calabra  rem 
divinam  lunoni  facit,  etiam  regina  sacrorum,  id  est  regis  uxor,  porcam 
vel  agnam  in  regia  lunoni  immolavit.44  It  has  been  supposed45  that 
this  offering  was  made  to  Janus,  on  the  assumption  that  the  rex  sacro- 
rum was  a  priest  of  Janus.  But  if  the  rex  sacrorum  was  not  a  priest  of 
Janus,  as  will  be  maintained  in  Chapter  VII,  this  argument  is  disposed  of. 
The  strongest  evidence  for  the  lack  of  any  sacrifice  to  Janus  on  the 
Kalends  is  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  such  a  ceremony.  It  seems 

4°Macrob.  1,  15,  19. 

41  Serv.  Aen.  7,  610;  cf.  Arnob.  6,  25. 

^Lyd.  Mens.  4,  1. 

43 /.  pp.  66-67. 

"Macrob.  1,  15,  19. 

45  Wissowa  Relig.  u.  Kult.  p.  103. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  19 

hardly  probably  that,  when  Macrobius  mentions  on  two  occasions  the 
ceremonies  of  Juno,  he  would  have  failed  to  speak  of  those  of  Janus, 
had  he  known  of  any.  In  1,  15,  18,  also,  where  he  says  that  the  Kalends 
belonged  to  Juno  and  the  Ides  to  Jupiter,  he  would  naturally  be  expected 
to  mention  Janus,  if  the  two-faced  god  had  had  anything  to  do  with 
either  of  these  days.  Ovid,  too,  remarks  on  the  power  of  Jupiter  and 
Juno  over  the  Ides  and  Kalends  respectively, 

Vindicat  Ausonias  lunonis  cura  Kalendas, 
Idibus  alba  lovi  grandior  agna  cadit.46 

Seven  lines  below  he  invokes  Janus: 

Ecce  tibi  faustum,  Germanice,  mmtiat  annum 

inque  meo  primus  carmine  lanus  adest. 
lane,  biceps etc. 

Certainly  in  the  first  two  lines  the  power  of  Janus  over  the  Kalends,  if 
he  had  any,  would  be  appropriately  mentioned,  in  view,  especially,  of  the 
invocation  of  that  deity.  In  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  an  of- 
fering to  Janus,  on  this  day,  the  only  reasonable  conclusion  is  that 
there  was  none.  And,  in  that  case,  Janus  cannot  be  considered  a  god 
of  the  Kalends. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  Kalends  and  of  New  Year's  day,  there  is  no 
record  of  an  offering  to  Janus  at  dawn.47  It  might  be  well  to  consider 
some  passages  on  which  is  often  based  the  conclusion  that  he  was  god 
of  the  morning.  In  Fasti  1,  125,  Ovid  puts  these  words  into  the  mouth 
of  Janus: 

Praesideo  foribus  caeli  cum  mitibus  Horis. 

In  the  first  place,  the  reference  to  the  hours  is  purely  Greek,  not  a 
Roman  conception  at  all;  in  the  second  place,  there  is  no  reason  for 
supposing  that  the  hours  are  those  of  early  morning  exclusively.  Ser- 
vius  also  makes  Janus  lord  of  the  day  in  about  the  same  sense:  Alii 
eum  (Janum)  diei  dominum  volunt  in  quo  ortus  est  et  occasus.48  It 
is  to  be  noted  here  that  Janus  is  god  of  the  closing,  as  well  as  of  the 
opening  of  the  day,  and  that  this  statement  may  equally  well  be  taken 
as  authority  for  the  supposition  that  he  was  god  of  the  evening.  These 

46  Ov.  F.  1,  55-56;  Cf.  ibid.  1,  185-186. 

47  Carter  Relig.  Life  of  Anc.  Rome  p.  10;  Wissowa  Relig.  u.  Kult.  p.  109;  /.  begin- 
ning of  Chapt.  Ill,  quotation  from  Mommsen. 

48Serv.  Aen.  7,  607. 


20  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

passages  imply  nothing  more  than  the  exaltation  of  the  door-god  into 
a  cosmic  deity,  the  process  which  affected  all  the  important  deities.49 
But  the  most  important  passage,  on  which  to  found  a  belief  in  Janus 
as  " Father  of  the  Morning"  is,  of  course,  Horace  Satires  2,  6,  20-35. 

Matutine  pater,  seu  lane  libentius  audis, 
imde  homines  operum  primes  vitaeque  labores 
instituunt,  sic  dis  placitum,  tu  carminis  esto 
principium.     Romae  sponsorem  me  rapis. 


Ante  secundam 

Roscius  orabat  sibi  adesses  ad  Puteal  eras. 

The  epithet  Matutinus  is  applied  to  Janus  only  this  one  time.  It  does 
not  occur  in  the  list  of  his  titles  given  in  Lydus,  de  Mensibus  4,  1 ;  nor  in 
Macrobius  1,9,  15 ;  nor  in  Servius,  ad  Aeneidem  7,  610.  Before  a  decision 
on  the  meaning  of  the  title  as  given  in  Horace  can  be  reached,  it  is 
necessary  to  compare  this  passage  with  similar  expressions  found  else- 
where. The  adjective  Matutinus  is  applied  to  Jupiter  once,  in  Martial 
4,  8,  11-12, 

gressu  timet  ire  licenti 

ad  matutinum  nostra  Thalia  lovem. 

which,  as  the  whole  poem  shows,  clearly  means,  "Our  Thalia  is  afraid 
to  approach  Jupiter  (i.  e.  Domitian)  in  the  morning."     Hardly  would 
anyone  interpret  it  as  meaning  " Jupiter  father  of  the  morning."50 
Compare  with  this,  also,  such  an  expression  as  this  of  Horace, 
....  vespertinus  pete  tectum.51 

"  Go  home  in  the  evening. "  It  is  possible  that  the  quality  suggested  by 
matutinus  may  be  no  more  a  permanent  attribute  of  Janus,  than  of 
Jupiter,  or  than  vespertinus  is  of  the  man  addressed  in  Epistle  1,  6. 
After  considering  the  other  lines  of  the  quotation,  it  will  be  possible 
to  come  back  to  this  with  a  clearer  view. 

It  is  well  known  that  lawyers  congregated  in  the  Forum  near  the 
Janus  Geminus.  Rapis,  consequently,  may  mean,  "you,  Janus, 
hurry  me  off  to  attend  to  business  near  your  arch."  The  ad  Puteal 

"Isid.  5,  33,  3;  Macrob.  1,  9,  2;  1,  9,  9;  1,  13,  3;  Suid.  s.  v. 

60  See,  however,  Linde  De  lano  Summo  Romanomm  Deo,  Acta  Universitatis  Lun- 
densis  27,  p.  37. 

61  Hor.  Epist.  1,  6,  20. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  21 

refers,  also,  to  the  business  section  of  the  Forum.  Ovid  couples  the  two 
together  in  the  line, 

Qui  Puteal  lanumque  timet,  celeresque  Kalendas.52 

The  unde  homines  operum  primos  mtaeque  labores  instituunt  may,  then, 
have  no  reference  to  Janus  as  god  of  beginnings,  but  may  have  two 
meanings  "from  you  (i.e.  near  your  arch)  men  receive  the  first  tasks 
of  the  day;  and,  from  you  (i.e.  as  father  of  men)  men  receive  the  burden 
of  life. "  In  tu  carminis  esto  Principium,  the  poet  may  be  giving  merely 
the  conventional  setting  to  his  poem.  Janus  was  regularly  invoked 
first  in  any  formula.  To  interpret  this  invocation  and  the  Matutinus 
pater  as  humorous  expressions  would  be  in  accordance  with  the  spirit 
of  the  Satire.  If  these  conjectures  have  any  weight,  the  four  lines  to- 
gether mean,  "Father  of  early-rising  business  men,  or  Janus,  if  thou 
preferest,  near  whose  arch  men  begin  the  toils  of  day,  and  from  whom 
they  receive  the  burden  of  life,  as  it  suits  the  gods;  do  thou,  as  patron 
of  lawyers,  begin  my  song.  When  I  am  in  Rome,  thou  hurriest  me  off 
early  in  the  morning  as  a  witness  .  .  .  Before  the  second  hour,  Ros- 
cius  asks  you  to  come  to  his  assistance  at  the  Puteal."  None 
of  these  lines  specifies  Janus  as  god  of  beginnings.  Furthermore,  Ser- 
vius,  in  quoting  the  words  Matutine  pater  uses  them  as  evidence  that 
Janus  was  god  of  the  closing  as  well  as  of  the  opening  of  the  day.53 
Whether  or  not  this  interpretation  be  correct,  there  remains  the  argu- 
ment, that,  at  least,  there  is  no  mention  of  any  ritual  performed  in 
honor  of  Janus  at  dawn.  And  since  it  is  the  religious  ceremonies  which 
determine  the  character  of  a  deity,  there  is  no  ground  for  considering 
Janus  the  "Father  of  the  Morning." 

It  has  been  shown  that  Janus  was  not  the  god  of  the  first  day  of 
the  year,  nor  of  the  first  day  of  the  month,  nor  of  the  first  month  of 
the  year  in  the  early  calendar,  nor  of  the  first  hours  of  the  day.  It  is, 
indeed,  a  strange  coincidence  that  this  deity  should  have  had  so  many 
characteristics  which  can  be  construed  by  analogy  to  mean  that  he  was 
patron  of  the  commencement  of  things — the  first  month  of  the  year  was, 
in  the  later  calendar,  called  by  his  name;  the  ceremonies  of  the  inau- 
guration of  officers  brought  to  him  a  sort  of  connection  with  the  dating 
of  the  year;  one  epithet,  Junonius,  seemed  to  connect  him  with  the 

62  Ov.  Rem.  Am.  561;  cf.  Hor.  Epist.  1,  1,  54;  Sat.  2,  3,  18-19. 
63Serv.  Aen.  7,  607. 


22  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

Kalends;  another  epithet,  Matutinus,  appeared  to  associate  him  with 
the  dawn.  Added  to  all  this  was  the  fact  that  he  was  invoked  usually 
first  in  prayers.  Two  lines  from  Martial  may  serve  to  illustrate  the 
process  by  which  modern  mythologists  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  Janus  was  god  of  beginnings: 

Annorum  nitidique  sator  pulcherrime  mundi, 

publica  quern  primum  vota  precesque  vocant.54 

To  make  the  door-god  a  deity  presiding  over  all  beginnings  would  explain 
these  words  easily.  He  would  then  be  a  beginner  of  time,  of  the  uni- 
verse and  of  prayers.  But  the  interpretation  based  on  the  preceding 
argument  would  be — annorum  sator,  because  the  civil  year  began  with 
his  month;  mundi  sator,  an  exaltation  of  Janus  into  a  world  deity, 
a  process  which  was  applied  by  the  poets  and  philosophers  to  all  the 
great  divinities.  The  second  line  states  the  fact  so  often  quoted,  that 
Janus  was  usually  invoked  first  in  prayers.  As  another  example,  the 
words  of  Septimius  Serenus:  o  principium  deorum,55  do  not  mean  that 
among  the  gods  Janus  was  the  beginner,  but  only  that  he  was  the  first 
of  the  gods.  When  Arnobius  says  Incipiamus  ergo  solemniter  ab  lano,56 
he  is  only  mocking  the  conventional  custom  of  beginning  prayers  with 
the  name  of  Janus.  He  is  about  to  consider  the  claims  to  divinity 
which  might  be  advanced  by  the  different  inhabitants  of  the  pagan 
pantheon;  he  will  discuss  the  deities  in  due  order  solemniter  and  will, 
therefore,  begin,  as  the  unconverted  Romans  do,  with  Janus.  St. 
Augustine,  too,  seems  to  be  ridiculing  the  heathen  ritual  when  he  says, 
lanus,  igitur,  a  quo  sumpsit  exordium.57  In  Paulus-Festus  is  the  state- 
ment Fuerit  omnium  primus:  cui  primo  supplicabant  veluti  parenti, 
et  a  quo  rerum  omnium  factum  putabant  initium.58  The  last  clause 
in  this  passage  is  merely  a  summary  of  the  other  two:  "Janus  comes 
first  of  the  gods,  prayers  are  addressed  to  him  first,  therefore  the  opinion 
is  that  everything  began  with  him,  that  is,  that  he  was  the  creator  of 
the  universe."  This  is  not  equivalent  to  saying  that  beginnings  were 
sacred  to  him.  Strangely  enough,  Cicero  makes  somewhat  the  same 
statement  about  Jupiter:  Imitemur  ergo  Aratum,  qui  magnis  de  rebus 

"Mart.  10,  28,  1-2. 

68  Septim.  Seren./mg.  1,  2  (Lemaire  Poet.  Lat.  Min.  p.  633). 

"Arnob.  3,  29. 

67  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  7,  7. 

68  Paulus-Fest.  52. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  23 

dicere  exordiens  a  love  incipiendum  putat ut  rite  ab  eo  dicendi 

principia  capiamus,  quern  unum regem  esse  omnes  .  .  .  con- 

sentiunt.59  This  honor  to  be  paid  to  Jupiter  did  not  seem  to  Cicero  to 
be  interfering  with  the  prerogatives  of  Janus.  In  short,  there  is  no 
record  of  Janus  being  invoked  at  the  beginning  of  undertakings,  any 
more  than  were  other  gods;  no  ceremonies  were  performed  in  his  honor 
at  the  beginning  of  the  arbitrary  divisions  of  time;  no  first  fruits  were 
sacred  to  him.  He  simply  headed  the  list  of  gods. 

After  this  attempted  explanation  of  the  extent  to  which  Janus 
was  god  of  beginnings,  it  might  be  interesting  to  turn  to  some  of  the 
theories  advanced  by  the  Romans  themselves.  It  will  be  seen  that 
even  these  ancients  did  not  by  any  means  agree  that  the  position  of 
this  deity  at  the  head  of  the  list  of  gods,  and  that  the  place  of  his  month 
at  the  beginning  of  the  year  were  due  to  any  power  of  his  over  begin- 
nings. As  a  reason  for  his  heading  the  list  of  gods  Macrobius  gives: 
ut  per  eum  pateat  ad  ilium  cui  immolatur  accessus,  quasi  preces  suppli- 
cium  per  portas  suas  ad  deos  ipse  transmittat.60  The  resemblance  of 
Janus  to  a  door-way  seemed  to  this  author  sufficient  reason  for  address- 
ing him  first.  Cicero  has  much  the  same  opinion,  principem  in  sacri- 
ficando  lanum  esse  voluerunt,  quod  ab  eundo  nomen  est  ductum.61 
Ovid,  also,  says: 

....  "  Cur  quamvis  aliorum  numina  placem, 

lane,  tibi  primum  tura  memmque  fero?" 
"Ut  possis  aditum  per  me,  qui  limina  servo, 

ad  quoscumque  voles,"  inquit  "habere  deos."62 

St.  Augustine  was  puzzled  by  the  fact  that  Janus  preceded  Jupiter, 
although  Jupiter  seemed  to  be  the  higher  of  the  two  deities;  he  attempted 

to  explain  this  by  saying,  quoniam  penes  lanum sunt  prima, 

penes  lovem  summa.63  Servius  thought  that  Janus  was  inventor  of 
speech,  and  for  this  reason  came  first  in  the  prayers  which  men  addressed 
to  the  gods.64  St.  Augustine  was  apparently  much  impressed  by  the 
possibility  of  drawing  comparisons  between  Janus,  the  begkmer,  and 

69  Cic.  Rep.  1,  36,  56;  cf.  Hor.  Od.  1,  12,  13. 
60  Macrob.  1,  9,  9. 
81  Cic.  N.  D.  2,  27,  67. 
62  Ov.  F.  1,  171-174. 

83  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  7,  9;  /.  p.  63,  64. 

84  Serv.  Aen.  7,  610. 


24  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

Terminus,  the  ender.65  This  was  reasonable,  too,  for  surely  the  ending 
of  any  undertaking  is  as  important  as  the  beginning,  and,  if  one  deity 
watched  over  the  commencement,  another  ought  to  guard  the  outcome. 
But  the  analogy  does  not  work  out  consistently.  If  Janus  had  been  the 
beginning  and  Terminus  the  ending,  then  in  prayers  where  Janus  conies 
first,  Terminus  ought  to  come  last.  Such  is  not  the  case:  Vesta  ends 
the  list,  and  Terminus  never  found  a  place  on  it  at  all.  Cicero  works 
out  an  analogy  making  Vesta  last:  Cunique  in  omnibus  rebus  vim  ha- 
berent  maximam  prima  et  extrema,  principem  in  sacrificando  lanum 
esse  voluerunt  ....  Vis  autem  eius  (Vestae)  ad  aras  et  focos  pertinet. 
Itaque  in  ea  dea,  quod  est  rerum  custos  intimarum,  omnis  et  precatio 
et  sacrificatio  extrema  est.66  Here  the  positions  of  Janus  and  Vesta,  at 
the  door  and  in  the  interior  of  the  house  respectively,  correspond  to 
their  respective  places  at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  list  of  deities, 
but  Cicero  does  not  attempt  to  show  that  their  functions  were  the 
analogical  ones  of  beginner  and  ender.  These  passages  show  how 
artificial  such  explanations  were.  There  is  no  reference  in  literature  to 
an  offering  either  to  Vesta  or  to  Terminus  as  guardians  of  the  ending 
of  any  undertaking,  or  to  Janus  as  the  patron  of  the  beginning  of  it. 
These  functions  of  the  deities  are  merely  fanciful  conceptions  of  the 
rhetoricians  and  poets,  and  had  no  place  in  religion  proper. 

The  reasons  given  by  the  Romans  for  making  the  month  of  Janus 
the  beginning  of  the  year  are  equally  various  and  inconsistent.  Plu- 
tarch says  that  Numa  named  the  first  month  after  Janus  because  he 
preferred  to  honor  the  god  of  agriculture  and  peaceful  government  rather 
than  the  god  of  war.67  Varro  believed  it  was  because  Janus  was  patron  of 
beginnings.68  Ovid  says  that  it  was  because  the  first  month  resembled 
a  door: 

Primus  enim  lani  mensis,  quia  ianua  prima  est.69 

Isidorus  has  much  the  same  idea:  lanuarius  mensis  a  lano  dictus,  cuius 
fuit  a  gentilibus  consecratus:  vel  quia  limes  et  ianua  sit  anni;  he  then 
goes  on  to  say  that  Janus  was  represented  with  two  faces  because  he 

65  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  7,  7. 

66  Cic.  N.  D.  2,  27,  67. 
67Plut.  Numa  19;  Q.  R.  19. 

68  Varro  L.  L.  6,  34. 

69  Ov.  F.  2,  51. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  25 

was  introitus  .  .  .  et  exitus  anni,70  which  might  imply  that  he  was 
god  of  endings,  as  well  as  of  beginnings.  Suidas  makes  him  the  door- 
keeper of  the  year.71  Macrobius  says  that  the  month  of  the  two-faced 
god  was  the  end  of  the  old  and  the  beginning  of  the  new  year.72  Ser- 
vius  makes  him  the  god  of  the  year.73  Ausonius,  spectans  tempora  bina 
simul,u  has  the  same  thought.  From  these  passages  it  appears  that 
most  of  the  reasons  given  by  the  Romans  to  explain  why  the  month 
of  Janus  was  first  in  the  year  are  analogical,  and  that  the  analogy  most 
frequently  employed  was  that  of  the  opening  and  closing  door. 

The  place  of  Janus  as  god  of  beginnings  may  be  summed  up  thus: 
After  it  became  the  custom  for  magistrates  to  enter  upon  their  office 
on  the  first  of  January  and  this  day  became  the  first  of  the  civil  year, 
some  honor  was  reflected  to  Janus  from  the  ceremonies  then  performed. 
Furthermore  his  name  was  often  used  as  a  synonym  for  his  month.  In 
consequence  of  these  two  facts,  he  is  often  hailed  as  the  beginning  of 
time.  This  title  always  means  that  he  is  the  beginning  of  the  secular 
year.  But,  as  the  Romans  became  familiar  with  abstract  ideas,  some 
conception  of  beginning  may  have  been  attached  to  Janus.  Such  a 
notion  may  have  been  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  Janus  was  invoked 
in  prayers  before  the  other  gods  and  by  such  analogies  as  the  follow- 
ing: lanua  autem  est  primus  domus  ingressus,  dicta  quia  lano  con- 
secratum  est  omne  principium.75  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  this 
is  the  only  one  of  the  passages  which  states  definitely  that  Janus  was 
god  of  beginnings.  When  philosophy  brought  to  the  Romans  nobler 
religious  conceptions  and  caused  them  to  raise  their  deities  to  a  loftier 
plane  than  that  of  the  earlier  numina,  Janus,  like  Jupiter,  became  a 
cosmic  deity.76  He  was  the  source  of  all  things,77  the  generator  of 
all  life,78  or  the  original  chaos  from  which  all  things  evolved.79  In  this 

70  Isid.  5,  33,  3-4;  cf.  8,  11,  37:  lanum  dictum  quasi  mundi  vel  caeli  vel  mensium 
ianuam. 

71  Suid.  s.  v. 

72Macrob.  1,  9,  9;  also  Herodian.  1,  16. 
73Serv.  Aen.  7,  607. 
74Auson.Ec/og.  377,  2. 

75  Serv.  Aen.  1,  449. 

76  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  7,  7;  Isid.  8,  11,  37;  Lyd.  Mens.  4,  2;  Ov.  F.  1,  103-120. 

77  Mart.  10,  28,  1. 

78  Macrob.  1,  9,  16. 

79  Lyd.  Mens.  4,  2;  Ov.  F.  1,  103;  1,  111-114;  Paulus-Fest.  52. 


26  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

sense  he  was  god  of  beginnings,  but  no  more  so  than  Jupiter  was.  The 
commencement  of  actual  undertakings  was  never  under  the  protection  of 
Janus.  The  abstraction  of  beginner,  or  source,  in  this  sense,  never  had 
a  place  in  the  ritual  of  the  Romans,  and  even  in  literature  such  an  idea 
is  seldom  applied  to  Janus;  in  fact  endings  are  associated  with  him  as 
much  as  are  beginnings. 


CHAPTER  IV 

STATUES  or  JANUS 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Romans  did  not  represent  their  gods 
by  statues  until  a  comparatively  late  period  in  their  history.  It  is 
said  that  for  over  a  hundred  and  seventy  years  they  had  no  images  of 
any  kind.1  This  state  of  affairs  is  attributed  to  Numa,  who,  according 
to  the  tradition,  had  been  taught  by  Pythagoras  that  it  was  wrong  to 
represent  the  deity  in  the  form  of  man  or  beast.  All  this  is,  of  course, 
mere  conjecture,  and  is  valuable  only  so  far  as  it  suggests  that  the 
Romans  themselves  thought  that  their  statues  of  gods  were  of  foreign 
origin.  This  lack  of  deities  in  human  form  was  due,  of  course,  not  to 
any  monotheistic  piety  on  the  part  of  Numa,  but  to  lack  of  artistic 
sense  among  the  Romans,  and  to  the  nature  of  their  deities.  Their 
impersonal  divinities,  or  numina,  were  hardly  distinguishable  from  the 
things  in  which  they  dwelt,  and,  to  the  primitive  worshipers,  these 
objects  were  sufficient  symbols  of  the  divine  presence.  After  a  time, 
however,  partly  under  the  influence  of  the  Greeks,  some  of  these  numina 
developed  into  true  anthropomorphic  gods  and  were  represented  in 
art.  But  Janus  was  never  worshiped  in  human  form.  To  the  end  of 
pagan  belief  he  remained  a  door-way,  just  as  Vesta  remained  "naught 
else  but  living  fire."2  The  evidence  for  this  is  the  fact  that,  whereas 
of  other  gods  statues  and  statuettes  have  been  found  in  great  numbers, 
and  are  mentioned  again  and  again  in  literature,  not  a  single  statue  of 
Janus  has  been  unearthed,  and  there  are  references  in  Latin  writers 
to  only  three.  Evidence  can  be  presented  to  show  that  at  least  two 
of  these  were  not  representations  of  Janus  at  all. 

One  of  these  statues  was  brought  from  Egypt  by  Augustus.  Pliny 
gives  the  following  account  of  it:  Item  lanus  pater  in  suo  templo 
dicatus  ab  Augusto,  ex  Aegypto  advectus,  utrius  (Scopae  an  Praxi- 
telis)  manu  sit,  iam  quidem  et  auro  occultatus.3  Wissowa's  conjecture 
that  this  was  a  Hermes,  and  not  a  Janus,  is  entirely  reasonable,  since 

1  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  4,  31,  2,  c;  Euseb.  Praep.  9,  6;  Plut.  Numa  8;  cf.  Clement.  Alex. 
Strom.  1,  15,  71. 

2Ov.F.  6,  291-292. 

3  Plin.  N.  H.  36,  5,  4,  28. 


28  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

Hermes  was  often  represented  with  two  faces.4  Augustus  either  failed 
to  recognize  the  true  character  of  this  statue,  or  else  thought  that  it 
would  serve  as  an  image  of  one  of  those  ancient  deities,  the  worship  of 
whom  he  was  trying  so  hard  to  revive. 

A  statue  with  four  faces  was  brought  from  Falerii  when  that  city 
was  captured  by  the  Romans.  Servius  says  that  Domitian  tore  down 
the  old  arch  of  Janus  Geminus  in  order  to  build  a  new  one  whose  four 
openings  should  correspond  to  the  four  faces  of  the  image:  the  statue 
which  had  been  set  up  by  Numa  in  the  old  arch  was  removed  to  the 
Forum  Transitorium.5  Martial  makes  this  new  Janus-arch  the  subject 
of  some  laudatory  verses.6  Procopius  describes  a  four-arched  passage, 
containing  a  two-faced  statue.7  Lydus  says  that  in  his  time  a  Janus 
quadrifrons  was  supposed  to  be  standing  in  the  Forum  of  Nerva.8  Sui- 
das  mentions  a  statue  having  on  its  fingers  the  numbers  CCCLXV, 
standing  for  the  number  of  the  days  of  the  year.9  Pliny  contradicts 
some  of  these  statements  by  saying  that  in  the  arch  of  Janus  Geminus 
there  was  a  statue  which  had  been  dedicated  by  Numa  as  a  symbol  of 
peace  and  war,  and  that  its  fingers  were  so  shaped  as  to  form  the  figures 
CCCLXV.10  On  the  basis  of  this  rather  confused  evidence  one  might 
suppose  that  in  the  Janus-arch  there  was  a  statue  of  some  kind;  and  it 
is  possible  that  the  first  one  placed  there  was  very  ancient  and  was,  on 
that  account,  attributed  to  Numa.  On  the  other  hand,  no  writer  before 
Pliny  mentions  a  statue;  it  is  also  possible  therefore,  that  the  first  one 
set  up  was  the  one  brought  from  Egypt  by  Augustus.  In  that  case,  the 
Numa  statue  never  could  have  existed,  but  the  arch  and  the  statue  both 
were  ascribed  to  that  mythical  king  by  popular  tradition.  If  that  was 
the  case,  there  is  mention  in  literature  of  only  two  statues  of  Janus, 
neither  of  which  was  originally  intended  to  represent  that  deity.  But 
this  matter  is  difficult  to  settle.  In  the  time  of  Pliny,  at  any  rate,  there 
was  a  two-faced  statue  supposed  to  represent  Janus  in  the  arch  of  Janus 

4  Wissowa  Relig.  u.  Kult.  p.  106;  Hill  (Coins  of  Anc.  Sicily  p.  208)  conjectures 
that  a  Sicilian  coin  of  about  250  B.C.,  having  a  janiform  head,  may  be  a  Hermes 
Cf.  Head  Coins  of  the  Ancients  in  the  British  Museum  pi.  18,  20;  21. 

*Serv.Aen.  7,  607. 

6  Mart.  10,  28. 

7  Procop.  Bell.  Goth.  1,  20. 
8Lyd.  Mens.  4,  1. 

9  Suidas  s.  v. 

"Plin.  N.  H.  34,  7,  16,  33;  Cf.  /.  pp.  41  sq. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  29 

Geminus,  and  on  its  fingers  were  the  figures  CCCLXV.  This  image, 
whether  the  one  of  Augustus,  or  an  older  one,  was  removed  by  Do- 
mitian,  and  a  new  Janus-arch  with  four  openings  was  built  to  hold 
the  quadrifrons  from  Falerii.  This  later  passage-way,  even  though  it 
had  four  arches,  must  still  have  been  called  Janus  Geminus,  because 
this  name  was  connected  with  the  cult  of  Janus  in  that  place  and 
must,  therefore,  have  become  stereotyped.  On  account  of  the  name, 
Procopius  may  have  taken  it  for  granted  that  the  statue  was  a  bifrons. 
He  does  not  speak  as  though  he  had  seen  it  himself.  He  simply  says 
of  it,  constat  fuisse.  The  conception  of  Janus  as  god  of  the  seasons 
was  associated  with  the  four-arched  passage  and  its  quadrifrons.11 

The  important  thing  in  this  connection  is  not  to  decide  about  the 
shape  and  final  disposition  of  the  statues,  but  to  note  that,  in  spite 
of  the  prominence  of  Janus  in  the  worship  of  the  Romans,  and  not- 
withstanding the  analogy  between  the  later  literary  character  of  Janus 
and  a  two-faced  or  four-faced  figure,  there  were  only  two,  or  at  most 
three  statues  of  the  god  at  Rome,  so  far  as  can  be  determined.  Of  these 
two  were  certainly  not  originally  intended  to  represent  Janus.  The 
conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  this  is  that  Janus  was  not  conceived  by 
his  worshipers  as  a  human  figure,  but  that  the  true  image  of  him  was 
the  arch  which  was  called  by  his  name,  the  Janus  Geminus. 

uLyd.  Mens.  4,  1;  Serv.  Aen.  7,  607. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  CONNECTION  or  JANUS  WITH  EARLY  COINAGE 
The  lack  of  statues  of  Janus  is  the  more  remarkable  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  a  representation  of  him  as  a  two-faced  deity  must  have  been  seen  and 
handled  often  by  the  Romans,  when  they  transacted  business  by  means 
of  the  old  as.1  Since  this  head  appears  on  the  most  ancient  round 
coins  of  the  Romans,  it  has  been  supposed2  that  this  was  the  one  true 
Italic  representation  of  a  deity,  the  only  anthropomorphic  divinity 
which  the  Romans  developed  independent  of  the  influence  of  other 
nations.  According  to  this  theory,  the  image  originated  in  the  concep- 
tion of  Janus  as  a  door-god.  As  a  door  serves  as  entrance  and  as  exit, 
so  the  spirit  of  the  door  came  to  be  represented  as  looking  both  ways  at 
the  same  time;  then,  because  a  harbor  is,  in  a  certain  sense,  an  entrance, 
the  door-god  came  to  be  the  presiding  deity  of  harbors  and  of  the  com- 
merce which  came  and  went  by  way  of  the  harbor;  for  this  reason  his 
head  was  represented  on  the  first  coins.3 

But,  since  other  nations  worshiped  two-faced  divinities,4  it  would 
seem  more  probable  that  the  Romans  had  copied  this,  as  they  did 
other  images  of  their  gods.  Another  difficulty  with  the  previous  theory 
is  that  the  two-faced  Janus,  so  far  as  can  be  known,  was  represented 
nowhere  except  on  these  coins,  and  it  seems  hardly  probable  that  the 
only  native  anthropomorphic  deity  should  have  had  so  restricted  an 
existence.  For,  as  has  been  said,  of  the  three  statues  of  Janus  men- 
tioned in  literature,  two  were  without  doubt  of  foreign  origin,  and  of 
the  other  nothing  is  known  with  certainty.5 

It  seems  more  reasonable,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  the  concep- 
tion of  a  double  face  was  a  foreign  one  grafted  on  to  Janus,  just  as 
happened  in  the  case  of  the  attributes  of  many  other  divinities;  and 

1  Babelon  Monn.  de  la  repub.  I,  p.  21  sq.;  Baumeister  Denk.  II,  p.  964,  no.  1158; 
p.  966,  no.  1166;  p.  967,  no.  1175;  Cohen  Monn.  de  emp.  II,  p.  355-356,  no.  881;  III, 
p.  392,  no.  17;  Monn.  de  la  repub.  pi.  XXIX;  XLVI;  XL VIII;  LII;  LIV  sq;  LXVII; 
Darem.  &  Saglio  s.  v.  I  anus  p.  610;  Mommsen  Hist,  de  la  monn.  rom.  pi.  V,  1;  XVII, 
5&6. 

2  Mommsen  Hist.  I,  pp.  213-214;  225. 

3  Cf.  Wissowa  Relig.  u.  Kult.  p.   105,  for  different  view. 

4  See  /.  p.  27;  Overbeck  Kunstmyth  pp.  91,  92,  476,  478. 
6  See  /.  Chapt.  IV. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  31 

that  the  notion  of  a  two-faced  deity  did  not  arise  through  analogy  at  all, 
but  by  a  different  process,  which  can  be  traced  out  with  at  least  some 
degree  of  probability  and  may  have  been  somewhat  as  follows:  it  has 
been  seen  that  Janus  held  the  first  place  in  the  list  of  gods,  and  that, 
when  a  prayer  was  made  to  the  great  divinities  of  the  state,  his  name 
regularly  came  first.  He  usually  received  a  preliminary  offering  even 
when  a  special  sacrifice  was  made  in  honor  of  some  other  deity.6  The 
Romans  held  this  custom  very  tenaciously,  even  after  more  attractive 
gods  who  were  of  foreign  origin  or  who  had  developed  under  foreign 
influence  had  usurped  the  principal  place  in  their  worship.  Janus 
must  have  gained  this  important  place  in  the  ritual  because  of  this 
preeminence  at  the  time  when  the  religion  was  in  the  formative  stage; 
so  that  when  the  ceremonial  became  stereotyped,  he  held  this  fixed 
position  long  after  he  ceased  to  satisfy  the  spiritual  needs  of  the  people. 
It  has  been  seen  that,  because  he  was  the  special  household  god  of  the 
head  of  the  family,  Janus  came  to  be  invoked  as  an  aid  in  many  activi- 
ties which  were  not  originally  under  his  jurisdiction.7  According  to 
the  theory  first  quoted,  Janus  was  god  of  the  door,  and,  because  of 
the  resemblance  between  a  door  and  a  harbor,  he  became  god  of  har- 
bors and  was  represented  on  coins.  But  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  that 
these  early  Romans  took  a  census  of  their  divinities  to  discover  which 
one  presided  over  an  activity  most  like  that  in  which  they  were  about 
to  engage.  It  is  most  natural,  on  the  other  hand,  to  suppose  that  the 
worshipers  of  Janus  turned  spontaneously  to  the  god  who  was  upper- 
most in  their  minds.  Having  asked  the  assistance  of  Janus  in  their 
business  affairs,  they  would  soon  identify  him  with  the  Greek  god  of 
trade,  since  they  were  very  ready  to  consider  their  divinities  the  coun- 
terparts of  foreign  ones  of  like  function.  Now  the  Greeks  occasionally 
represented  some  of  their  gods  as  two-faced.  Hermes  was  often  so 
fashioned.  There  even  existed  coins  of  this  sort.8  When  once  the 
double-faced  Hermes  was  presented  to  the  Romans  as  corresponding 
to  their  Janus,  the  analogy  between  this  symbol  and  the  door-god 

6  See  /.  Chapter  III. 

77.  Chapt.  I. 

8  Athen.  15,  46;  Darem.  &  Saglio  1,  pp.  91-92;  p.  419,  fig.  508;  Overbeck  Kunst- 
myth.  pp.  476  sqq.;  Hill,  Coins  of  Sicily  p.  150;  Ward  Greek  Coins  pi.  8,  fig.  308; 
Catalogue  Coins  in  Brit.  Mus.  1892,  1,  p.  79;  pp.  80,  82-84;  1873,  9  ff.;  1897  pp.  91  ff.; 
/.  p.  28,  note  4. 


32  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

would  undoubtedly  help  to  fix  the  conception.  The  cult  name  Geminus, 
which  Janus  had  received  from  his  arch,  would  aid  in  establishing  the 
idea.9  This  cannot  be  proved  with  the  certainty  of  a  mathematical 
formula,  but,  in  addition  to  the  reasonableness  of  the  theory,  some 
facts  may  be  adduced  which  add  to  its  probability. 

The  coins  bearing  a  Janus  head  often  had  on  the  reverse  the  repre- 
sentation of  a  ship's  prow.  These  asses  must  have  been  at  one  time 
quite  common,  for  Macrobius  says  that  Roman  boys  in  a  game  some- 
what like  "tossing  pennies"  called  capita  aut  navia.  This  circumstance 
Macrobius  takes  to  be  a  proof  of  the  antiquity  of  this  sort  of  coinage.10 
Athenaeus  says  that  Janus  is  represented  on  the  as  because  it  was  he 
who  invented  the  art  of  stamping  money;  and  that  the  ship  appears 
because  he  invented  navigation.11  Servius  makes  the  ship  a  repre- 
sentation of  the  one  in  which  Janus  came  to  Italy.12  Macrobius,  on 
the  other  hand,  thinks  that  it  was  Saturn  who  came  over  the  sea,  and 
that,  being  kindly  received  by  Janus,  who  was  king  at  that  time,  he 
rewarded  the  friendly  monarch  by  teaching  him  and  his  subjects  the 
arts  of  civilization.  In  gratitude  for  his  practical  education,  Janus 
had  Saturn's  ship  placed  on  the  coins.13  Ovid  gives  much  the  same 
account,  but  says  that  it  was  pious  posterity  which  preserved  the  memory 
of  the  ship  by  picturing  it  on  coins.14  Plutarch  asks  the  question,  "  How 
is  it  that  they  imagine  Janus  to  have  had  two  faces?"  and,  in  reply 
to  his  own  query,  he  conjectures,  "Is  it  because  he,  being  a  Greek, 
came  from  Perrhaebia,  as  we  learn  from  historians;  and  passing  forward 
into  Italy,  dwelt  in  that  country  among  the  barbarous  people  who 
there  lived,  whose  language  and  manner  of  life  he  changed?  Or  rather 
because  he  taught  and  persuaded  them  to  live  together  after  a  civil  and 
honest  sort,  in  husbandry  and  tilling  the  ground,  whereas  formerly 
their  manners  were  rude  and  their  fashion  savage  without  law  or  jus- 
tice altogether.  "15  The  two-faced  Janus  must  have  been  a  great  puzzle 
to  this  inquirer,  for  he  devotes  to  him  another  chapter  also;  "What  is 

.    9/.  p.  41. 

10  Macrob.  1,  7,  22. 

11  Athen.  15,  46. 
12Serv.  Aen.  8,  357. 
"Macrob.  1,7,  19-21. 
14  Ov.  F.  1,239-240. 

16  Plut.  Q.  R.  22. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  33 

the  reason  that  the  ancient  coin  and  money  in  antiquity  carried  the  stamp 
on  one  side  of  Janus  with  two  faces?  and  on  the  other  the  prow  or 
poop  of  a  boat?  Was  it  to  honor  Saturn  who  came  to  Italy  in  a  ship? 
But  Janus,  Evander,  and  Aeneas  came  in  ships.  More  likely  because 
Janus  instituted  good  government,  civilized  the  Italians,  and  furnished 
necessities  which  were  brought  by  sea  and  land.  The  two  faces  stand 
for  the  change  of  life  that  Janus  brought  in,  and  the  boat  stands  for 
the  river."16  Servius  gives  the  bare  explanation  that  Janus  came  as 
an  exile  in  a  ship,  and  on  this  account  his  head  is  stamped  on  one  side 
of  coins,  and  on  the  other  a  ship.17  Minucius  Felix  reverts  to  the  story 
that  Saturn  fled  from  Crete  to  Italy  and  was  received  hospitably  by 
Janus.  Out  of  gratitude,  since  he  was  a  Greek  of  culture,  he  taught  the 
rude  and  uncivilized  Italians  many  things,  among  them,  to  write,  to 
coin  money,  and  to  make  tools.  Janus,  therefore,  named  the  country 
"Saturnia"  and  "Latium"  in  his  honor.18  Plutarch,  on  the  other 
hand,  makes  Janus  himself  teach  these  arts  to  the  people,  "For  this 
Janus,  in  the  most  remote  antiquity,  whether  a  demi-god  or  a  king, 
being  remarkable  for  his  political  abilities,  and  his  cultivation  of  society, 
reclaimed  men  from  their  rude  and  savage  manners;  he  is  therefore 
represented  with  two  faces,  as  having  altered  the  former  state  of  the 
world,  and  given  quite  a  new  turn  to  life.19  Macrobius20  says  that 
religious  rites  and  sacrifices  were  first  established  by  Janus,  and  that 
his  two  faces,  therefore,  look  towards  the  past  and  towards  the  future. 
Lydus  expresses  much  the  same  idea.21 

The  gist  of  the  passages  may  be  put  briefly  as  follows:  Janus  either 
on  his  own  initiative,  or  under  the  influence  of  Saturn,  introduced  into 
Italy  a  knowledge  of  the  arts  of  civilization,  of  religious  rites  and  of 
coinage.  The  writers  realized  that  this  culture  originated  in  Greece 
and  came  to  Italy  in  a  ship.  Now,  as  is  well  known,  the  Romans  had 
commerical  relations  with  the  Greeks  in  very  early  times,  especially 
with  those  of  Sicily.22  The  truth,  therefore,  underlying  these  somewhat 

16  Plut.  Q.  R.  41. 

17  Serv.  Aen.  8,  357. 

18  Mimic.  Felix  2 1,5-6. 

19  Plut.  Numa  19. 

20  Macrob.  1,  9,  2-4. 

21  Lyd.  Mens.  4,  2. 

^Liv.  4,  25;  4,  52;  Mommsen  Hist.  I,  p.  231;  pp.  258-259. 


34  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

contradictory  myths  must  be  that  when  the  Romans  were  still  in  the 
early  stages  of  civilization,  Greek  traders  came  up  the  Tiber,  bringing 
with  them  some  knowledge  of  the  arts  of  life  and  having  as  their  patron 
a  two-faced  god.  Since  the  appearance  of  the  ships,  of  the  coins,  of 
the  civilized  arts,  and  of  the  god  with  the  two  faces  was  simultaneous, 
tradition  linked  them  all  together  in  these  stories.  In  this  connection 
it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Athenaeus  says  that  Janus  invented  coinage 
and  that  on  that  account  his  head  appears  on  many  Greek  and  Sicilian 
coins.23  He  is  evidently  simply  reversing  the  process,  for  it  was  these 
Greek  and  Sicilian  coins  which  were  the  prototypes  of  the  Roman,  not 
the  other  way  about.  Athenaeus,  although  he  must  have  been  familiar 
with  coins  of  this  sort,  made  the  same  mistake  that  Augustus  and  Domi- 
tian  did  in  identifying  the  symbol.24 

Although  the  Romans  saw  and  handled  constantly  the  coin  having 
the  double-faced  head  of  Janus,  yet,  in  spite  of  all  the  nice  analogies  to 
be  noted  between  a  door  and  such  an  image,  and  in  spite  of  the  pro- 
minence of  the  deity  in  worship,  they  were  not  moved  to  make  other 
representations  of  him  in  this  form.  This  is  significant  of  the  fact 
that  the  two-faced  Janus  was  a  god  of  coins  only;  that  aside  from  these 
coins,  he  was  not  thought  of  in  this  shape.  Therefore  Ovid's  state- 
ment that  Janus  had  no  Greek  counterpart  is  true.25  The  identity  of 
the  Greek  Hermes  and  of  the  Janus  of  the  same  form  never  occurred 
to  the  poet,  partly,  perhaps,  because  they  were  alike  in  so  few  particu- 
lars, and  partly  because  the  identification  of  Hermes  with  Mercury  had 
obscured  the  early  association  of  Hermes  with  Janus. 

The  Janus  Portunus  who  was  worshiped  near  the  Tiber  as  a  pro- 
tector of  grain,  may  be  associated  with  the  Janus  of  early  commerce. 
Portunus  is  identified  in  Paulus-Festus  with  the  Greek  Palaemon.26 
Professor  Fowler,  arguing  from  an  obscure  passage  in  the  Veronese 
Commentary  on  Vergil  Aeneid  5,  241,  comes  to  the  conclusion  that 
Portunus  was  not  originally  a  god  of  harbors  at  all,  but  that  he  was  guar- 
dian of  the  door  to  the  granary  in  the  Forum  Boarium.27  This  bril- 

23  Athen.  15,  46;   cf.  /.  Chapt.  IV.     See  Carter  Relig.  of  Numa\  p.  77,  79;  Hill 
Handbook  of  Greek  and  Roman  Coins  p.  45,  for  possible  date  of  these  Roman  coins. 
24 /.  Chapt.  IV. 

26  Ov.  F.  1,  90. 

^Fest.  242,  243;  Cf.  Verg.  Aen.  5,  241. 

27  Fowler  Rom.  Fest.  pp.  202-204. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  35 

liant  theory  explains  the  keys  that  are  assigned  to  him.  It  shows  clearly, 
also,  how  he  came  to  be  an  off-shoot  of  Janus:  he  was  a  localized  form 
of  the  door-god.  He  became  patron  of  harbors,  probably,  because  his 
prototype  Janus  was  a  god  of  harbors  and  partly  because  the  store- 
house over  which  Portunus  presided  was  near  the  Tiber.  When  grain 
was  being  transported  up  the  Tiber  in  times  of  scarcity,  the  deity  who 
guarded  it  in  the  storehouse  probably  extended  his  protection  to  it  as 
it  lay  in  the  harbor  close  by.  Thus  he  became  protector  of  the  boat- 
landing. 

The  festivals  of  Portunus  and  of  Tiberinus  fall  on  August  17th, 
which  was  the  dedication  day  also  of  the  temple  of  Janus  built  by 
Duilius.28  The  coincidence  of  the  dates  may  be  accidental.  Momm- 
sen,  however,  identifies  Portunus  with  Tiberinus.  In  addition  to  the 
coincidence  of  the  dates  of  the  Portunalia  and  of  the  Tiberinalia,  the 
fact  that  the  two  festivals  were  held  in  the  same  part  of  the  city,  near 
the  Forum  Boarium,  may  be  considered  as  a  support  for  this  theory.29 
If,  however,  Professor  Fowler's  theory  that  Portunus  was  originally 
guardian  of  the  annona  be  correct,  these  must  have  been  distinct  deities, 
for  Tiberinus  must  surely  have  been  primarily  god  of  the  Tiber.  To 
make  the  matter  still  more  difficult  to  untangle,  there  is  yet  another 
ancient  deity,  Volturnus,  who  must  also  have  been  a  river  god.  For 
the  same  name  Volturnus  was  applied  to  a  river  in  Campania,  and  the 
Fasti  Vallenses  have  a  note  under  August  27,  Volturni  flumini  sacri- 
hcium™  Varro  says  that  the  origin  of  Volturnus  was  obscure,  but 
that  he  had  a  flamen.31  This  is  about  all  the  information  which  is  to 
be  had  about  the  deity.32  Arnobius  represents  Janus  as  the  father 
of  Fons  and  the  husband  of  Juturna,  who  was  the  daughter  of  Vol- 
turnus.33 The  explanation  of  all  this  may  possibly  be  as  follows:  In 
very  ancient  times,  Volturnus  was  the  god  of  the  river;  but  at  this  time 
the  people  were  interested  only  in  flocks  and  fields,  and  the  god,  con- 
sequently, was  a  power  only  to  be  feared  because  of  his  destructive  floods. 
But,  later,  the  commerce  made  possible  by  the  navigable  Tiber  caused 

28C7L.  I,  p.  399  (Aug.  17);  Cf.  /.  p.  44. 
29C7L.  I,  p.  399  (Aug.  17);  1,  407  (Dec.  8). 
30C7L.  I,  p.  400.    Cf.  Paulus-Fest.  379. 

31  Varro  L.  L.  7,  45.    Cf.  ibid.  6,  20. 

32  See  Mommsen's  note  in  CIL.  I,  p.  400. 

33  Arnob.  3,  29. 


36  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

that  body  of  water  to  be  propitiated  from  other  motives  than  fear  for 
the  safety  of  crops  and  herds.  At  this  time  the  name  Tiberinus  was 
given  to  the  god,  either  because  the  river  had  now  changed  its  name 
from  Volturnus  to  Tiber  or  because  the  new  function  required  a  new  god. 
However  this  may  be,  it  is  at  least  reasonable  to  conjecture  that 
at  the  time  when  Janus,  the  door-spirit,  had  become  patron  of  ship- 
ping, Portunus,  who  was  originally  Janus  Portunus,  became  guardian 
of  the  state  granary.  He  developed  into  a  harbor  god,  partly  under 
the  influence  of  Janus  in  that  capacity,  partly  because  the  storehouse 
was  near  the  river.  Then  Volturnus,  the  old  god  of  the  flowing  river, 
was  obscured  by  the  divinity  of  the  commercially  valuable  Tiber.  Both 
Portunus  and  Tiberinus  probably  developed  later  than  Volturnus. 
Professor  Fowler  suggests  that  the  fact  that  the  flamen  of  Tiberinus 
could  be  a  plebeian  may  denote  a  late  origin  of  the  cult.34  And  C. 
Duilius  probably  dedicated  a  temple  to  Janus  because  at  that  time  Janus 
was  god  of  ships.  The  fact  that  he  chose  August  17  as  the  natal 
day  of  his  temple  may  possibly  show  that  he  connected  Janus  with  the 
gods  of  the  river  and  of  the  harbor.  In  later  times  most  of  the  old  Roman 
gods  were  obscured  by  the  Greek  importations  and  Mercury  became 
the  god  of  commerce.  But  Janus  held  his  position  on  the  as  as  a  remi- 
niscence of  his  former  importance  in  trade ;  Tiberinus  and  Portunus  had  a 
festival  somewhere  near  the  Tiber;  while  Volturnus  had  but  the  faintest 
traces  left  to  him  of  his  ancient  worship.  The  Roman  mythologists 
attempted  to  explain  the  confusion  of  deities  exercising  almost  the  same 
function  by  making  them  relatives. 

34  Fowler  Rom.  Fest.  p.  202. 


CHAPTER  VI 

JANUS  GEMINUS  AND  OTHER  JANUS-ARCHES  AND  TEMPLES 
The  true  representation  of  Janus  was  no  statue  or  image  of  any 
kind:  it  was  the  arch  in  the  Forum  called  I  anus  Geminus,  the  gates  of 
which  were  opened  in  time  of  war  and  closed  in  time  of  peace.1  This 
was  the  real  Janus,  the  symbolical  entrance-way,  the  locus  of  the  cult 
of  the  door-way  of  the  state,  just  as  Vesta,  in  her  little  round  temple, 
was  the  symbolical  hearth  of  the  city.  The  arch  was  the  god  himself, 
and  it  was  nearly  always  called  "Janus,"  not  "temple  of  Janus,"  or 
"arch  of  Janus. "  The  gates  were  the  "gates  of  Janus,"  not  the  "gates 
of  the  arch  of  Janus.  "2  The  arch,  at  some  time,  contained  a  statue  3 
but  Janus  was  not  the  image,  or  any  spiritualization  of  it.  The  god 
was  the  door- way  itself,  and  seldom  was  this  called  anything  but  "Janus." 
In  this  respect  Janus  retained  his  primitive  character  of  numen.  Vesta 
and  Janus  were  the  only  great  Roman  deities  that  were  not  affected 
by  Greek  anthropomorphism.  They  kept  their  ancient  animistic 
character  almost  unchanged  throughout  the  whole  period  of  Roman 
religion. 

The  cult  of  the  lanus  Geminus  originated  in  a  period  so  remote 
that  it  is  only  by  careful  analysis  that  a  faint  conception  of  the  con- 
ditions can  be  gained.  It  is  quite  generally  conceded  that  the  Roman 
state  worship  was  but  the  counterpart  of  that  of  the  family.  As  the 
father  was  the  religious  head  of  the  household,4  so  the  early  king  was  the 
chief  of  the  religion  of  the  community.  The  king's  hearth  was  the 
central  fireplace,  his  daughters  tended  the  fire.  In  historical  times  the 
Vestal  virgins  took  the  place  of  the  king's  daughters,  and  the  temple 
of  Vesta  became  the  hearth  of  the  city.5  If  the  parallelism  had  been 
complete,  it  would  be  expected  that  the  state  door-way  would  be  the 
entrance  to  the  king's  palace.  This  dwelling  of  the  king  was  later 

1Hor.  Sat.  1,  4,  60-61;  Serv.  Aen.  7,  610;  Suidas  s.  v.\  Verg.  Aen.  1,  293-296; 
J.  Chapt.  IV.  cf.  Liv.  1,  19. 

2  See  references  cited  in  this  Chapter.    Note  the  awkward  personification  in 
Stat.  Silv.  4,  1,  11-44. 

3  /.  Chapt.  IV. 

4  Cato  R.  R.  143. 

5  Bailey  Relig.  of  Ancient  Rome  pp.  75  ff.;  Carter  Relig.  of  Numa  pp.  12-15;  Fowler 
Rom.  Fest.  pp.  283,  288,  335;  Cf.  Dion,  of  Hal.  2,  14;  /.  pp.  45  sq. 


38  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

represented  by  the  Regia.6  To  complete  the  analogy,  then,  the  state 
Janus  should  have  been  the  door  to  this  Regia.  How,  instead  of  this, 
the  symbolical  entrance  came  to  be  an  independent  building,  an  anomaly, 
a  door-way  leading  to  no  edifice,  remains  an  insoluble  mystery.  Varro 
identifies  the  Janus-arch  with  the  Porta  lanualis,  which,  he  says  was 
the  third  of  the  gates  leading  to  the  Palatine  city.7  If  his  assumption 
were  correct,  the  I  anus  Geminus  would  be  the  survival,  not  of  the  king's 
door- way,  but  of  a  city  gate;  and  Janus  would  have  been  the  patron 
of  gates,  as  well  as  of  doors.  In  this  case,  the  cult  must  have  become 
localized  at  the  Porta  lanualis,  which  was  preserved,  on  account  of 
religious  conservatism,  long  after  the  city  had  outgrown  the  wall  to 
which  it  had  served  as  an  opening.  It  is  possible  that  the  cult  of  lanus 
Geminus  originated  in  some  such  way  as  this.  It  seems  strange,  how- 
ever, if  Janus  ever  were  protector  of  the  city  gates,  that  he  did  not  con- 
tinue in  that  office,  since  Rome  was  continually  beset  by  enemies,  and 
always  had  ample  need  of  protection  at  her  gates.  One  would  expect 
the  cult  to  move  out  along  with  the  new  gates  of  each  successive  wall; 
for  had  such  a  practice  ever  existed,  there  was  never  a  sufficient  inter- 
val of  peace,  during  the  stormy  period  of  the  city's  growth  to  allow  her 
to  forget  the  ceremony.  Consequently,  it  seems  hardly  possible  that 
any  rites  were  ever  performed  at  the  city  gates.  Furthermore,  Plu- 
tarch expressly  states  that  the  city  gates  were  not  sacred  to  any  god.8 
In  historical  times,  at  all  events,  the  Romans  remained  satisfied  with 
the  protection  of  Janus  at  the  one  symbolical  gate.  Moreover,  Macro - 
bius  seems  to  consider  the  Porta  lanualis  and  the  Janus-arch  as  two 
distinct  buildings,  since  he  says  that  in  the  Sabine  war,  Rome's  ene- 
mies were  overwhelmed  by  water  which  burst  ex  aede  lani  per  hanc 
portam.g  Probably  the  origin  of  the  arch  was  obscured  by  antiquity 
as  deeply  for  Varro  and  Macrobius  as  it  is  for  modern  scholars.  If  there 
ever  was  a  Porta  lanualis,  its  existence  might  even  be  taken  as  slight 
evidence  for  the  supposition  that  Janus  was  not  a  god  of  gates.  For, 
if  all  gates  were  sacred  to  him,  it  is  hardly  likely  that  his  name  would 
have  been  attached  to  only  one.  This  is,  however,  merely  conjectural, 
and  is  worth  no  more  than  similar  guesses  of  the  Roman  etymologists. 

8 /.p.  45-46. 

7  Varro  L.  L.  5,  165;  Cf.  Platner,  p.  191,  note  10. 

»Plut.  Q.  R.27. 

9  Macrob.  1,  9,  17-18. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  39 

One  thing  only  is  certain,  whatever  the  origin  of  the  arch  may  have  been, 
that  it  represented  a  passageway,  and  that  it  was  Janus  himself.  The  cult, 
moreover,  was  so  deeply  rooted  as  to  be  one  of  the  last  traces  of  Paganism 
to  be  abandoned.  In  the  time  of  Belisarius,  about  two  centuries  after 
Christianity  became  the  state  religion,  at  the  beginning  of  the  war  with 
the  Goths,  some  persons  at  Rome  opened  the  doors  of  the  old  I  anus 
Geminus.10  So  deeply  rooted  was  the  feeling  that  no  war  could  be 
begun  properly  without  this  ancient  ceremony. 

In  the  tempestuous  history  of  Rome,  there  were  but  few  periods 
during  which  the  "gates  of  war"  were  closed.  Tradition  says  that 
Numa,  the  advocate  of  peace,  founded  the  arch,  and  that  during  the 
forty-three  years  of  his  reign,  the  gates  remained  shut.11  After  that 
they  were  open  constantly  until  after  the  first  Punic  war.  Then  came 
a  short  interval  of  peace.12  Again  for  over  two  hundred  years  there 
was  strife,  until  the  time  of  Augustus.  He  closed  the  gates  at  least 
three  times,  perhaps  four.13  One  of  these  periods  of  tranquility  in- 
cluded the  date  traditionally  assigned  to  the  birth  of  Christ,  a  fact  that 
deeply  impressed  the  minds  of  the  early  Christians.14 

The  gates  were  closed  again  during  the  reign  of  Nero,15  under  Ves- 
pasian,16 perhaps  under  Domitian,17  during  the  joint  reign  of  Marcus 
Aurelius  and  Commodus,18  under  Constantine,19  and  under  Honorius.20 

10Procop.  Bel.  Goth.  1,  25.  (Teubner  ed.) 

11  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  3,  9;  3,  10;  Flor.  EpU.  1,  18,  1;  Liv.  1,  19;  Plut.  Fortuna  Rom. 
9;  Numa  20;  Serv.  Aen.  1,  291;  1,  294;  Varro  L.  L.  5,  165;  Veil.  Pater.  2,  38,  3;  Aur. 
Viet.  Vir.  III.  79;  Mommsen  Res  Gestae  Dim  Aug.  p.  50. 

12  Note  11  above.     Servius,  however,  in  Aen.  1,  291,  makes  the  misstatement 
that  the  temple  was  closed  after  the  Second  Punic  war,  but  Varro  and  others  unite 
in  saying  that  it  was  after  the  First. 

UCIL.  I,  p.  312;  p.  384,  Mommsen's  note  on  Jan.  11;  Dio  Cass.  51,  20;  53,  26; 
54,  36  (On  this  occasion  the  gates  were  not  closed,  on  account  of  a  revolt  of  the  Da- 
cians.);  Hor.  Od.  4,  15,  8-9;  Epist.  2,  1,  253-255;  Liv.  1,  19;  Mon.  Ancyr.  cap.  13,  pp. 
L-LI;  pp.  49  ff.  (Mommsen's  ed.);  Oros.  1,  1;  6,  20;  6,  21;  6,  22;  7,  3;  Ov.  F.  1,  282; 
Plut.  Fortuna  Rom.  9;  Numa  20;  Serv.  Aen.  1,  291;  Suet.  Aug.  22;  Veil.  Pater.  2,  38,  3; 
Aur.  Viet.  Vir.  III.  79;  William  Fairley  Trans,  and  Reprints,  Mon.  Ancyr.  pp.  36-37. 

14  Oros.  1,  1;  6,  22;  7,  3;  7,  9;  Cf.  Milton  Hymn  to  the  Nativity. 

15Lucan.  Phars.  1,  61-62;  Suet.  Nero  14;  see  also  note  23,  p.  40. 

16  Oros.  7,  3;  7,  9;  7,  20. 

17  Stat.  Silv.  4,  1. 

18  Lamprid.  Vit.  Comm.  16;  Aur.  Viet.  Caes.  27. 
"Amm.  Marc.  16,  10,  1. 

"Claudian  XXII  Laud.  Stilich.  2,  286-287;  XXVIII  VI  Cos.  Hon.  637-641. 


40  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

It  is  said  that  they  were  opened  during  Gordian's  reign,21  therefore  it 
is  safe  to  assume  that  they  had  been  closed  previously.  There  is  no 
mention  of  any  other  opening  or  closing  of  the  arch,  except  the  one  lapse 
into  pagan  practice  at  the  beginning  of  the  war  with  the  Goths.22  This 
is  the  last  account  of  the  ceremony. 

There  are  no  remains  identified  as  belonging  to  the  lanus  Geminus. 
It  is  fairly  certain,  however,  that  it  was  situated  in  the  northeast  end 
of  the  Forum,  near  the  entrance  to  the  Argiletum.23  Originally  it  had 
two  openings.  It  is  probably  due  to  this  fact,  not  to  any  character 
of  the  deity,  that  Janus  was  called  Geminus.24  There  is  a  representation 
of  the  structure  on  coins  of  Nero,25  from  which  it  appears  to  have  been 
a  small  building,  barely  large  enough  to  accommodate  a  pair  of  double 
doors  with  heavy  bolts.  The  description  by  Procopius  corresponds 
to  the  picture  on  the  coin,  but  does  not  agree  with  Martial,  or  with 
Servius,  according  to  whom,  Domitian,  when  he  rebuilt  and  enlarged 
the  arch,  changed  it  from  a  bifrons  to  a  quadrifrons,  in  order  to  make  the 
openings  correspond  to  the  four  faces  of  the  Falerian  statue  which  he 
intended  to  set  up  in  it.26  A  possible  explanation  is,  that  by  the  time 
of  Procopius  the  structure  had  been  changed  again  to  a  two-arched 
passage;  or,  that  the  author  of  de  Bella  Gothico  was  misled  by  the  epi- 
thet Geminus.  He  described  the  statue,  however,  as  a  quadrifrons. 
Probably  he  never  saw  the  building.27  In  addition,  some  of  the  incon- 

21  Jill  Capit.  VU.  Gord.  26;  Eutrop.  9,  2;  Oros.  7,  19. 

22  Procop.  Bell.  Goth.  1,  25;  /.  p.    28. 

23  CIL.  I,  p.  395,  June  9\  Liv.  1,  19;  Ov.  F.  1,  258  (but  cf.  Plainer  p.  191);  Met. 
14,  785-786;  Procop.  Bell.  Goth.  1,  25;  SerA.  Aen.  7, 607 (Servius  says,  SVNT  GEMINAE 
BELLI  PORTAE  Sacrarium  hoc,  id  est,  belli  poitas  Numa  Pompilius  fecerat  circum 
imum  Argiletum  iuxta  theatrum  Marcelli.    Quod  fuit  in  duobus  brevissimis  templis: 
duobus  autem  propter  lanum  bifrontem.  .  .  .  That  the  arch  was  iuxta  theatrum 
Marcelli  is  clearly  impossible.    He  has  evidently  confused  the  Janus  Geminus  with 
the  temple  of  Duilius,  See  /.  p.  44.);  Gilbert  Geschichte  u.  Top.  der  Stadt  Rom  1,  p.  321; 
Huelsen  Rom.  For.  pp.  134  sqq.  (Carter's  trans.);  Platner  pp.  190  ff. 

24 /.  p.  29. 

25  Baumeister  Denk.  1,  p.  234,  fig,  206;  Cohen  Monn.  de  Vimp.  1,  p.  287,  114; 
p.  289,  141. 

26  Mart.  10,  28;  Serv.  Aen.  7,  607;  /.  Chapt.  IV. 

27  /.  p.  29;  Cf.  Plut.  Fortuna  Rom.  9;  Numa  20;  Stat.  Silv.  4,  1,  13-14;  Verg.  Aen. 
1,  294;  7,  610.    According  to  Platner  (p.  268),  Domitian  did  not  rebuild  the  old  Janus 
Geminus,  but  set  up  an  additional  one  in  the  Forum  of  Nerva.     Cf.  /.  Chapt.  IV. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  41 

sistencies  in  descriptions  of  form  and  situation  may  be  due  to  the  re- 
buildings  of  the  arch;  for  the  Janus  must  have  been  rebuilt  several  times, 
as  were  the  other  buildings  in  the  Forum. 

To  the  ceremonies  attending  the  opening  and  closing  of  the  "gates 
of  war  and  peace"  there  are  but  few  references,  and  these  must  be 
pieced  together  in  order  to  make  any  complete  picture.  Vergil  and  his 
commentator,  Servius,  say  that  the  consul,  when  opening  the  gates, 
wore  the  trabea  of  Quirinus.28  Macrobius  connects  the  two  epithets  of 
Janus,  Patulcius  and  Clusius,  with  the  opening  and  closing  of  the  doors.29 
Ovid  says  that  these  names  were  used  at  the  time  when  the  priest  offered 
up  a  cake  of  meal  and  salt.30  In  Paulus-Festus  mention  is  made  of  the 
cake  lanual  which  was  offered  only  to  Janus.31  Cato  tells  of  an  offering 
of  strues,32  a  word  which,  in  Paulus-Festus  is  described  as  consisting  of 
strips  of  bread  laid  crosswise,  one  above  the  other.33  It  is  possible  that 
lanual  and  strues  were  different  names  for  the  same  thing,  and  that  the 
strues  mentioned  in  Paulus-Festus  was  the  same  as  that  offered  to  Janus 
in  the  ritual  described  by  Cato:  in  that  case  they  were  the  offering  made 
in  the  field.  As  to  any  other  place  of  offering,  nothing  is  said  in  these 
passages.  But  Macrobius  quotes  Varro  for  the  statement  that  there 
existed  twelve  altars  to  Janus,  a  number  corresponding  to  the  number 
of  months  in  a  year.34  If  these  twelve  altars  really  existed,  they  were 
set  up  at  a  late  period,  for,  as  has  been  shown,  it  was  not  until  153  B.C. 
that  the  month  of  Janus  became  the  first  of  the  year,  and  that  Janus 
became,  by  a  figure  of  speech,  a  leader  of  time.35  The  erecting  of  these 
altars  would  correspond,  perhaps,  to  the  placing  of  the  figures  CCCLXV 
on  the  fingers  of  the  statue  in  the  arch.36  It  is  certain  that  these  numerals 
were  a  late  invention,  because  the  Romans  did  not  have  a  year  of  365 
days  until  45  B.C.37  All  that  can  be  said,  then,  with  certainty 
•about  the  ceremonies  in  honor  of  Janus  is  that  his  gates  were  opened 

28  Serv.  Aen.  7,  610;  Verg.  Aen.  7,  607-614. 

29  Macrob.  1,  9,  16;.  Cf.  Lyd.  Mens.  4,  1. 

30  Ov.  F.  1,  127-130. 

31  Paulus-Festus  104. 

32  Cato  R.  R.  134. 

33  Paulus-Festus  3 10. 

34  Macrob.  1,9,  16. 

35 /.  Chapt.  III.  p.  28  sq. 

36  /.  Chapt.  IV,  note  10,  p.  28. 

37  Fowler  Rom.  Fest.  p.  4;  /.  Chapt.  IV. 


42  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

by  a  consul  attired  in  an  ancient  religious  garb;  that  a  cake  called  lanua 
and  one  called  strms  were  offered  to  Janus;  that  at  the  offering  of  some 
cakes,  whether  of  these  or  of  others,  the  god  was  addressed  as  Patul- 
cius  and  Clusius]  that  these  names  were  connected  in  some  way  with 
the  opening  and  closing  of  the  arch;  that  in  the  last  years  of  the  republic, 
or  in  the  first  of  the  empire,  twelve  altars  were  erected  to  Janus,  and 
the  figures  CCCLXV  were  placed  on  the  fingers  of  his  statue. 

In  time  of  peace,  when  of  course,  the  Janus-arch  was  closed,  an 
augurium  salutis  was  taken  by  the  new  consul.38  The  fact  that  Augus- 
tus performed  this  long-neglected  ceremony,  when  he  closed  the  gates 
of  Janus,  does  not  necessarily  indicate  any  other  connection  between  the 
augurium  and  Janus  beyond  the  fact  that  both  were  concerned  with 
peace.39 

The  part  of  the  Forum  in  which  bankers,  money-lenders  and  lawyers 
had  their  places  of  business,  was  often  called  ad  lanum,  or  ad  lanum 
medium.  Cicero  so  uses  the  expression  in  De  Officiis  2,  87:  De  collo- 
canda  pecunia  commodius  a  quibusdam  optimis  viris  ad  lanum  medium 
sedentibus  disputatur  and  in  Philippic  6,  5, 15:  L.  Antonio  a  lano  medio 

Patrono.   Itane? quis    umquam    in   illo    lano   inventus   est 

qui  L.  Antonio  mille  nummum  ferret  expensum?  and  Horace  in  Satires, 
2,  3,  18-20: 

Postquam  omnis  res  mea  lanum 

ad  medium  fracta  est;  aliena  negotia  euro, 

excussus  propriis. 

In  Ovid,  Remedia  Amoris  561; 

Qui  Puteal  lanumque  timet,  celeresque  Kalendas, 

the  same  region  is  meant,  but  is  called  lanus,  not  lanus  medius,  and 
includes  the  Puteal.  In  Horace  Satire  2,  6,  20-23,  the  Puteal  is  men- 
tioned alone  as  a  meeting-place  of  lawyers  and  of  business  men.  These 
passages  seem  to  show  that  "Janus"  was  a  portion  of  the  Forum,  of 
indefinite  area,  in  which  business  was  transacted.  In  Horace,  Epistles, 
1,  20,  1-2,  Janus  and  Vortumnus  are  given  as  objects  which  will  be 
seen  by  a  book  ambitious  for  public  notice.40  For  an  interpretation 

38  Dio  Cass.  37,  24. 

39  Dio  Cass.  51,  20;  Suet.  Aug.  31;  Bailey  Rom.  Relig.  p.  98.  Cf.  Cic.  Div.  1,  105 ; 
Paulus-Fest.   161;  /.  p.  39. 

40  Cf.  Cic.  Verr.  1,  154,  and  Asconius'  note;  Liv.  44,  16;  Prop.  4,  2;  Varro  L.  L. 
5,  46. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  43 

of  this  passage,  it  is  not  necessary  to  assume  that  a  statue  of  Vortum- 
nus  and  a  Janus-arch  stood  near  the  shop  of  the  Sosii,  where  the  book 
would  be  exposed  for  sale.  It  is  more  probable  that  the  poet  is  merely 
calling  attention  to  two  prominent  things  which  may  be  seen  by  the 
book  from  the  shop,  or  when  purchased  and  carried  off  through  the 
Forum.41 

Horace,  Epistles  1,  1,  53-54: 

quaerenda  pecunia  primum  est, 

Haec  Janus  summus  ab  imo 

prodocet, 

in  conjunction  with  the  passages  in  which  Janus  medius  is  mentioned, 
has  been  taken  as  evidence  that  there  were  three  Janus  arches  in  the 
Forum,  lanus  Medius,  Janus  Summus  and  Janus  Imus.42  The  lines 
above  would  then  mean,  "From  the  upper  to  the  lower  Janus- arch 
this  is  taught. "  Bentley  arguing  from  the  fact  that  the  words  summus, 
imus  and  medius  are  often  used  of  an  inclined  street,  concluded  that 
ad  lanum  was  the  name  of  a  street.43  It  is  more  probable,  however, 
that  ad  lanum  means  simply  an  indefinite  portion  of  the  Forum.  In 
that  case,  ad  lanum  medium  is  "in  the  middle"  of  this  area  or  "near 
the  Janus-arch  which  stands  in  the  middle  of  the  Forum,44  and  lanus 
summus  ab  imo  means  "from  one  end  to  the  other  of  the  business 
section  of  the  Forum."45 

There  were  other  arches  called  lani,  but  none  had  the  sanctity 
of  the  Janus  Geminus.46  There  was  one,  probably,  at  the  foot  of  the 
Janiculum;47  another,  a  bifrons,  which  still  stands  in  the  Velabrum, 
was  built  by  the  silversmiths  in  honor  of  Septimius  Severus,  his  wife  and 
two  sons;  near  this  is  a  quadrifrons,  the  date  of  which  is  uncertain.48 
The  Tigillum  Sororum  is  sometimes  given  in  the  list  of  Janus-arches. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  however,  this  was  a  Janus.49  The  Janus  Quadri- 

41  Huelsen  For.  Rom.  p.  65  ff . 

42  Gilbert  Geschichte  und  Top.  der  Stadt  Rom  3,  pp.  215  sqq. 

43  Bentley  on  Hor.  Epist.  1,  1,  54;  So  also  Richter  Top.  p.  106  ff.;  Lanciani 
Ruins  p.  251  sqq;  Bull,  della  Commissione  Archeoolgica  CommunalidiRoma  1890, 100. 

44  Jordan  1,  2,  213  sqq. 

45  Platner  p.  257. 

46  Cic.  N.  D.  2,  27,  67;  Liv.  41,  27;  2,  49;  Ov.  F.  1,  257;  Suet.  Aug.  31. 
47Darem.  and  Saglio  s.  v.  lanus;  Roscher  Lex.  col.  22. 

"Jordan  1,  2,  pp.  471  sq.;  Platner  p.  403. 
49 /.  Chapt.  LX. 


44  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

irons  built  by  Domitian  in  the  Forum  Transitorium,  or  Forum  Nervae, 
is  sometimes  counted  as  another  Janus-arch,  but,  as  has  been  shown, 
this  may  have  been  only  a  rebuilding  of  the  old  Janus  Geminus.50  Augus- 
tus may  have  built  a  new  arch  to  shelter  the  statue  which  he  brought 
from  Egypt,  but  here  also  there  is  uncertainty  as  to  whether  the 
reference  is  to  a  new  arch  or  to  the  old  Janus  Geminus.51 

These  lani,  as  well  as  the  triumphal  arches  which  are  not  generally 
so  designated,  constitute,  one  of  the  original  contributions  of  the  Romans 
to  the  architecture  of  the  world.  It  is  to  be  seen,  however,  that  they 
were  the  result,  not  of  a  sudden  inspiration,  but  of  a  strange  dissocia- 
tion of  the  door,  Janus,  from  the  building  to  which  it  had,  at  one  time, 
been  an  entrance. 

The  only  true  temple  that  Janus  ever  had  was  the  one  near  the 
Porta  Carmentalis^  built  by  C.  Duilius  in  fulfillment  of  a  vow.53  This 
site  was  called,  but  obviously  not  until  the  time  of  Augustus,  ad  Thea- 
trum  Marcelli.  On  August  17  and  on  October  18  offerings  were  made 
there.54  These  dates  mark  respectively  the  natal  day  of  the  temple 
and  the  date  of  its  restoration.  The  fact  that  Duilius  vowed  a  temple 
to  Janus  shows  that  the  god  of  doors  was  a  war  god,  and  was  important 
to  warriors  even  as  late  as  the  Punic  wars.  The  fact  that  the  dedica- 
tion day  of  this  temple  was  made  to  coincide  with  the  festivals  of  Tiberi- 
nus  and  Portunus  cannot  be  taken  as  proof  of  the  association  of  Janus 
with  these  two  deities.  As  has  been  said,  the  coincidence  of  the  dates 
of  the  two  festivals  may  have  been  purely  accidental.55 

60 /.  Chapt.  IV. 

51 /.  Chapt.  IV,  p.  27. 

52Liv.   2,  49,  8;   Paulus-Fest.   285. 

53  Tacit.  Ann.  2,  49. 

64  CIL.  1,  p.  320;  399.    Aust  Aedibus  Sacris  p.  18;  Fowler  Rom.  Fest.  pp.  202  sqq. 

"Fowler  Rom.  Fest.  pp.  204  ff.;  /.  p.  34. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  REX  SACRORUM 

Mention  has  been  made  of  the  theory  that  the  primitive  worship 
of  the  Roman  state  was  the  counterpart  of  that  of  the  household.  In 
accordance  with  this  hypothesis,  the  king  was  the  religious  head  of  the 
community,  performing  for  the  state  the  office  which  the  father  per- 
formed for  his  household;  the  king's  daughters  who  attended  the  state's 
Vesta,  filled,  in  the  state,  the  place  of  the  daughters  in  a  family;  and  the 
entrance  to  the  king's  dwelling  must  have  been  the  seat  of  the  Janus  of 
the  city1. 

As  late  as  republican  days  there  were  found  remnants  of  this  paral- 
lelism. A  rex  sacrorum  performed  for  the  state  some  of  the  duties  of 
the  ancient  king;  Vestal  virgins  cared  for  the  sacred  fire;  the  Janus 
Geminus  in  the  Forum  was  the  symbolical  door-way  of  the  state.  The 
natural  inference  is  that  the  rex  sacrorum  was  the  priest  of  this  public 
Janus,  as  the  father  of  each  household  was  priest  of  his  own  domestic 
Janus.  This  is  the  usual  explanation  of  the  "king  of  sacred  things."2 
It  must  be  confessed  that  the  parallelism  is  very  attractive.  It  can 
hardly  be  expected,  however,  that  a  state  religion,  though  in  the  begin- 
ning it  may  have  been  an  exact  reproduction  of  domestic  worship,  would 
continue  to  furnish  a  perfect  counterpart  when,  in  the  growing  com- 
plexity of  civilization,  the  commonwealth  developed  many  phases  of 
activity  not  found  in  the  household.  For  this  reason,  some  discrepan- 
cies are  to  be  observed  in  the  comparison.  One  of  these  has  been  noted, 
that  originally  Janus  must  have  resided  in  the  entrance  to  the  king's 
palace.  In  the  Republic,  the  Regia  was  the  survival  of  this  royal 
dwelling.  It  was  the  seat  of  the  state  religion  of  an  earlier  epoch. 
Its  sacred  character  is  shown  by  the  sacrifices  performed  there,  by  the 
wreaths  placed  above  its  door,  and  by  the  religious  articles  kept  in  its 
sacraria,3  but,  in  spite  of  this,  it  was  not  the  door  of  the  Regia,  but 

1J.  pp.  1-2;  37-38. 

2  Bailey  Relig.  of  Ancient  Rome  p.  77;  Carter  Relig.  of  Numa  p.  13;  Fowler  Rom. 
Fest.  pp.  334-335;  Relig.  Experience  of  the  Rom.  People  pp.  126  ff.;  Wissowa  Relig. 
u.  Kult,  pp.  509  ff. 

3  Dion,  of  Hal.  2,  70;  Cell.  4,  6,  1;  Macrob.  1,  12,  6;  1,  15,  19;  Ov.  F.  3,  135-144; 
Fest.  186;  278;  279;  Plut.  Numa  14,  15;  Rom.  29;  Serv.  Aen.  7,  603;  8,  363;  Varro 
L.  L.  6,  21;  Fowler  Rom.  Fest.  pp.  35-36,  39,  44,  213,  324;  cf.  Ov.  Trist.  3,  1,  30; 
Solin.  1,  21;  Tacit.  Ann.  15,  41;  /.  p.  62. 


46  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

an  entirely  distinct  edifice,  the  Janus  Geminus,  which  was  the  sym- 
bolical state  door,  the  Janus  of  the  whole  Republic.4 

Another  disagreement  between  the  republican,  and  the  primitive 
organization,  one  that  more  nearly  concerns  this  Chapter,  is  the  fact 
that,  although  the  Vestals  took  the  place  of  the  king's  daughters,  yet 
the  rex  sacrorum,  the  survival  of  the  primitive  king,  was  not  their  official 
father;  for  it  was  the  pontifex  maximus,  a  person  not  found  at  all  in  the 
primitive  order  of  things,  who  held  these  maidens  under  his  potestas.5 
Whether  the  usual  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  Vestals  be  true  or 
not,  the  fact  remains  that  the  high  priest  surpassed  in  power,  and  even 
inaugurated  the  rex;6  and  this  fact  requires  explanation.  The  ancient 
Romans  knew  that  their  rex  sacrorum  was  a  survival  of  the  king  in  his 
religious  capacity.  To  account,  then,  for  his  meager  authority  even  in 
matters  of  worship,  they  said  that,  because  of  the  tyranny  of  the  Tar- 
quins,  the  very  name  of  king  was  hated  and  feared,  and  that  therefore 
the  most  important  religious  duties  of  the  chief  were  given  to  the  ponti- 
fex maximus,  in  order  that  the  power  of  the  one  bearing  the  royal  title 
might  be  as  slight  as  possible.7  But  if  these  early  Romans  were  capable 
of  abolishing  or  curtailing  old  offices  and  creating  new  ones  in  so  violent 
a  fashion,  it  seems  strange  that  they  should  have  felt  constrained  to 
retain  their  rex  at  all.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  belief  in  their  religious 
conservatism  is  to  be  upheld,  a  more  reasonable  explanation  would 
be  that  these  offices  were  the  result  of  a  gradual  growth.  A  clue  to  the 
solution  of  the  problem  may  be  found  by  an  inquiry  into  the  nature  of 
the  early  kingship. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  evidence  collected  by  Professor 
Frazer  showing  that  the  kings  of  many  primitive  nations,  both  of  the 
past  and  of  the  present,  have  been  considered  by  their  subjects  to  be  the 
incarnations  of  deities.8  It  seems  likely  that,  at  a  similar  stage  of  their 
development,  the  Romans  had  kings  of  the  same  sort.  This  supposi- 
tion is  strengthened  by  the  established  fact  that  such  kings  existed  near 

47.  Chapt.  VI. 

5  Fest.  106;  Plut.  Numa  9;  Ov.  F.  3,  419-428. 

6  Fest.  126;  Liv.  2,  2;  40,  42,  8-9;  Wissowa,  509  sqq. 

7  Dion,  of  Hal.  4,  73-74;  5,  1;  Liv.  2,  1-2;  Lyd.  Magist.  Reip.  Rom.  1,  36;  Plut. 
Q.  R.  63. 

8  Frazer  Golden  Bough,  The  Dying  God]  The  Magic  Art',  Lectures  on  the  Early 
Hist,  of  the  Kingship;  see  especially  Magic  Art,  pt.  2,  pp.  174  sqq.;   /.  p.  1-2. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  47 

Rome.  The  strange  priest-king  at  Nemi  was,  as  Professor  Frazer  has 
shown,  a  survival  of  such  an  incarnate  ruler.9 

Moreover  the  traditions  current  among  the  Romans  about  the 
deification  of  Romulus10  prove  that  the  idea  of  a  king-god  was  not 
repugnant  to  them;  and  the  ease  with  which  the  cult  of  the  deified 
emperors  was  established  was  due,  not  to  the  arrogance  and  the  power 
of  these  rulers  themselves,  but  to  the  fact  that  the  germ  of  this  sort  of 
worship  had  always  lain  dormant  in  the  hearts  of  the  people,  ready  to 
grow  under  favorable  circumstances.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  both 
Julius  Caesar  and  Augustus  were  considered  deities  even  during  their 
lifetime.11  Ideas  of  this  land  could  not  have  sprung  up  out  of  nothing 
in  a  short  time.  They  must  have  been  a  natural  development  of  the 
king-worship  which  had  lain  dormant  for  centuries  in  the  religious  con- 
cepts of  the  people.  From  the  time  of  Julius  Caesar  on,  the  worship 
of  the  emperors  was  a  regular  part  of  the  Roman  religion.  The  deity 
with  whom  the  emperor  was  usually  identified  was  Jupiter.12 

The  existence  at  Rome  of  a  divine  kingship  is  suggested  also  by 
the  Regifugium.1*  This  was  a  ceremony  occurring  on  the  twenty-fourth 
of  February,  when  the  rex  sacrorum  performed  a  sacrifice  in  the  Comitium 
early  in  the  morning  and  immediately  fled  in  haste.  The  Romans 
seem  to  have  thought  that  this  speedy  departure  was  emblematic  of  the 
flight  of  the  Tarquins  from  Rome.  This  is  too  obviously  a  theory  made 
up  to  fit  the  name.  By  the  same  sort  of  etymological  reasoning,  the 
Poplifugium  was  said  to  commemorate  the  flight  of  the  people  after  a 
battle.14  The  true  reason  for  the  flight  of  the  king  must  lie  deeper  in 

9  Valer.  Place.  Argon.  2,  300-305;  Ov.  Ars  Am.  1,  259-260;  F  3,  271-272;  Pausan. 
2,  27,  4;  Serv.  Aen.  6,  136;  Stat.  Silv.  3,  1,  55-56;  Strabo  5,  3,  12;  Suet.  Calig.  35; 
Frazer  Golden  Bough,  The  Magic  Art,  pp.  1-24;  /.  pp.  2  sqq. 

10  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  3,  15;  Cic.  Nat.  Deor.  2,  24,  62;  Rep.  2,  10,  17-18;  Dion,  of  Hal. 
2,  56;  2,  63;  Flor.  Epit.  1,  1,  18;  Liv.  1,  16;  Ov.  F.  2,  491-512;  Met.  14,  805-828;  Plut. 
Numa  2;  Rom.  28,  29;  Aur.  Viet.  Vir.  III.  2. 

"Appian.  Bell.  Civ.  2,  148;  3,  2;  Dio  Cass.  44,  5-7;  44,  51;  51,  19-20;  Hor.  Od. 
1,  2,  41-52;  Ov.  Met.  15,  745-870;  Serv.  Aen.  1,  290;  1,  291;  Suet.  Aug.  94-100;  Jid. 
76;  88;  Verg.  Aen.  1,  289-290;  (many  other  references  might  be  added). 

12 /.  pp.  51-54. 

13  Auson.  Eclog.  385,  13-14;  CIL.  I,  p.  387,  Feb.  24,  and  Mommsen's  note;  Ov. 
F.  2,  685-852;  5,  727-728;  Fest.  278,  279;  Plut.  Q.  R.  63;  Serv.  Aen.  8,  646;  Fowler 
Rom.  Fest.  pp.  327-331;  Mommsen  in  CIL.  I,  p.  367,  1,  3. 

14Macrob.  3,  2,  14;  Varro  L.  L.  6,  18;  See  Fowler  Rom.  Fest.  pp.  174  ff. 


48  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

the  nature  of  religious  sacrifices.  Professor  Robertson  Smith,  from 
data  too  copious  to  be  presented  here,  deduces  the  law  that  the  victim 
slain  in  honor  of  a  god  was  always  originally  that  deity  himself.15  If 
this  is  true,  the  animal  killed  at  the  Regifugium  represented  some  divin- 
ity. But  why  did  the  rex  himself  flee  so  swiftly  after  the  sacrifice?  Was 
it  because  it  was  a  sacrilege  to  slay  a  god?  If  this  were  so,  why  did 
not  all  priests  run  away  after  performing  similar  rites?  Is  it  not  really 
much  more  probable  that,  although  this  victim,  in  accordance  with 
Professor  Smith's  law,  was  a  deity,  yet  it  was  not  from  the  consequences 
of  the  sacrilegious  slaughter  that  the  priest-king  fled;  but  that  the 
rex  sacrorum,  like  the  primitive  kings  already  mentioned,  was  him- 
self originally  both  the  deity  and  the  victim,  "a  god  self -slain  on  his 
own  strange  altar?"  He,  then,  felt  a  particular  necessity  for  flight, 
if  he  would  avoid  an  untimely  death.  Perhaps  some  crafty  old  king, 
on  perceiving  that  the  time  was  come  when  he  must  pay  for  the  privi- 
leges enjoyed  during  his  reign,  repaired  in  secret  to  the  place  set  for  his 
very  literal  self-sacrifice,  slew  a  sheep  and  fled,  leaving  it  on  the  altar 
as  a  substitute  for  himself.  It  must  have  been  comparatively  easy  to 
persuade  his  superstitious  subjects  that  the  gods  had  accepted  the 
animal,  or  even  that  they  had  provided  it  themselves.  Having  once 
found  that  no  ill  consequences  followed  the  sacrifice  of  a  beast  instead 
of  a  man,  a  people  that  was  so  far  advanced  in  civilization  as  to  be 
averse  to  the  slaughter  of  an  innocent  human  being,  would  be  likely  to 
continue  the  vicarious  sacrifice.  When  once  the  rex  had  slain  his  vic- 
tim and  fled,  he  would  always  perform  the  act  in  the  same  way.  And, 
in  more  cultivated  times,  the  rex  sacrorum  fled  in  imitation  of  that  fear 
which  had  inspired  the  flight  of  the  primitive  king.16 

The  next  question  to  consider  is:  what  god  was  incarnated  in  this 
priest-king?  In  the  examples  given  by  Professor  Frazer,  the  kings 
who  attained  this  unenviable  god-head  were  always  magicians  who  had 
power  especially  over  the  weather.17  The  reason  for  slaying  this  king, 
as  has  been  shown  in  another  connection,18  was  to  keep  his  power  un- 

15Encyclop.  Brit,  article  "Sacrifice." 

16  For  other  instances  of  flights  in  primitive  rituals,  see;  Farnell  Cults  of  the 
Greek  States,  1,  pp.  88;  Frazer  Golden  Bough  2,  pp.  35  sqq.;  Lobek  Aglaophamus  676; 
Mannhardt  Myth.  Forsch.  pp.  58  sqq.;  Robertson  Smith  Relig.  of  the  Semites,  pp.  286 
sqq. 

17  Frazer  Golden  Bough,  Chapters  1,  2  &  6;  Lect.  on  the  Early  Hist,  of  the  Kingship. 
18 /.  p.  2. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  49 

harmed  by  advancing  age,  or,  in  time  of  scarcity,  to  influence  the  weather 
and  secure  more  abundant  crops.  Now,  the  Roman  god  of  the  sky  and 
of  the  rain  was,  of  course,  Jupiter.19  Therefore  it  seems  entirely  prob- 
able that  the  early  king,  the  descendant  of  the  rain -making  magician, 
was  a  human  Jupiter.  If  so,  this  god  Jupiter,  conversely,  had  been  an 
earthly  ruler  who  was  etherialized  into  a  real  divinity,  whereas  the  king, 
who  originally  had  been  the  god  himself,  became  merely  vice-regent  on 
earth.  Perhaps  some  of  the  stories  associated  with  the  priestly  Numa 
may  be  reminiscences  of  the  magical  relation  between  him  and  the 
weather  god.  One  such  tale  is  the  following:  The  pious  monarch, 
by  the  recitation  of  a  certain  formula,  brought  Jupiter  down  from  the 
sky.  He  then  inquired  of  the  Thunderer  what  propitiatory  offering 
he  desired  when  he  hurled  his  bolts  against  mankind.  "A  head  must 
be  cut  off,"  said  the  god;  "Of  an  onion,"  Numa  agrees.  "Of  a  man," 
the  deity  insists;  "The  topmost  hairs,"  retorts  the  king.  Jupiter 
repeats  his  demand,  "A  life  must  be  sacrificed,"  "Yes,  of  a  fish," 
assents  the  ever -compliant  Numa.  Seeing  the  uselessness  of  con- 
tinuing the  argument  with  so  clever  a  controversialist,  Jupiter  yielded, 
and  from  that  time  on,  the  sacrifices  suggested  by  Numa  were  made 
for  lightning.20  Besides  showing  the  magical  relationship  between 
Numa  and  the  god  of  thunder,  this  story  incidentally  gives  another 
example  of  a  human  sacrifice  being  changed  to  that  of  an  animal,  or 
even  a  vegetable.21  Furthermore,  according  to  Plutarch,  Numa  insti- 
tuted and  took  part  in  certain  "sacrifices  and  dances,"  in  order  to  secure 
the  aid  of  the  gods.22  These  ceremonies  were  probably  magical  prac- 
tices, somewhat  like  the  dances  of  the  "medicine  men"  among  the 
American  Indians. 

King  Latinus  became  Jupiter  Latiaris  after  his  death,23  and  Aeneas 
was  deified  as  Jupiter  Indiges.™  This  enhances  the  probability  that 
these  kings  were  Jupiters  during  their  lifetime.  To  Jupiter  Latiaris, 

"Carter  Relig.  of  Numa,  pp.  21  &  58;  Cook,  A.  B.  Zeus,  pp.  10  sqq.;  pp.  41, 
sqq.;  Fowler  Rom  Fest.  pp.  88  sqq.;  229  sqq.;  Frazer  Golden  Bough,  The  Magic  Art  2, 
pp.  174  sqq.;  Wissowa  Relig.  u.  Kult,  pp.  113  sqq. 

20Arnob.  5.  1-4;  Ov.  F.  3,  327-369;  Plin.  N.  H.  2,  53,  140;  Plut.  Numa  15;  Aur. 
Viet.  Vir.  III.  4. 

21  Cf.  Fest.  379,  where  the  ver  sacrum  is  mentioned. 

22  Plut.  Numa  8. 

23  Fest.   194;   Frazer  Golden  Bough,  2,   187. 

24Liv.  1,  2,  6;  Ov.  Met.  14,  581-608;  Serv.  Aen.  1,  259;  cf.  4,  620. 


50  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

moreover,  human  sacrifices  were  offered,25  a  circumstance  suggesting 
still  further  a  connection  between  him  and  divine  victims  of  primitive 
times,  such  as  the  Rex  Nemorensis.  The  many  taboos26  that  had  to  be 
observed  by  the  rex  sacrorum  and  by  the  ftamen  Dialis,  appear  by  a 
comparison  with  such  things  among  other  primitve  nations  to  be  an 
indication  of  divinity.27  Their  purpose  seems  to  have  been  to  protect 
the  godhead,  because  any  injury  coming  to  him  would  affect  the  whole 
country.  Furthermore,  a  passage  from  Plautus28  quoted  and  translated 
by  Professor  Frazer,29  shows  that  the  idea  of  human  Jupiters  was  suf- 
ficiently familiar  to  the  Romans  to  be  used  in  a  popular  play.  An  old 
man  says  to  a  slave,  "I'll  be  your  Jupiter;  and,  so  long  as  I  am  pro- 
pitious, you  need  not  care  a  straw  for  these  lesser  gods."  "That's  all 
nonsense,"  retorts  the  slave,  "as  if  you  did  not  know  how  human  Jupi- 
ters die  a  sudden  death.  When  you  are  a  dead  Jupiter,  and  your  king- 
dom has  passed  to  others,  who  will  there  be  to  protect  me?"  This 
may,  of  course,  be  borrowed  from  the  Greeks,  from  whom  Plautus  drew 
most  of  his  material;  but  he  would  hardly  have  used  it  unless  there  had 
been  something  in  Roman  customs,  or  traditions,  enough  like  it  to 
make  it  intelligible  to  his  audience.  It  is  entirely  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  the  reference  is  to  a  ceremony  at  some  near  place,  such  as  Nemi, 
or  that  it  is  a  conception  native  to  Rome.  But  even  if  the  idea  be  an 
imported  one,  it  must  be  noticed  that  it  is  Jupiter,  not  some  other  deity, 
who  is  chosen  as  the  god  who  could  die. 

It  is  to  be  noted,  too,  that  the  title  Rex  is  constantly  bestowed  on 
Jupiter.30  It  is  possible,  to  be  sure,  that  this  may  be  another  case 
of  borrowing  from  the  Greeks.  The  Romans  may  simply  have  identi- 
fied their  Jupiter  with  the  Greek  Zeus;  but  even  if  this  were  so,  the  fact 
that  he,  rather  than  some  other  god,  was  chosen  as  the  counterpart  of 
the  Homeric  "king  of  gods  and  men,"  is  some  indication  of  his  original 
character  of  king.  The  consistency  with  which  this  title  is  bestowed 

25Min.  Felix  22,  6;  30,  4;  Liv.  10,  38;  Tert.  Apol.  9. 

26  Fest.  81;  248-249;  Cell.  10,  15;  Plin.  N.  H.  18,  12,  30,  119;  28,  9,  40,  146;  Plut. 
Q.  R.  40,  44;  50;  109-113. 

27  Frazer  Golden  Bough,  Taboo,  and  the  Perils  of  the  Soul',  Lect.  on  the  Early  Hist, 
of  the  Kingship,  Chapt.  2. 

« Plant.  Casino,  2,  5,  23-29  (330-337). 

29  Frazer  Lect.  on  the  Early  Hist,  of  the  Kingship,  pp.  282-283. 

30  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  4,  17;  4,  23;  7,  9;  7,  11;  Hor.  Od.  4,  4,  2;  Verg.  Aen.  1,  65;  2, 
648;  5,  533;  10,  2. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  5 1 

on  Jupiter,  quern  unum  omnium  deorum  et  hominum  regem  esse  omnes 
doctrina  expoliti  consentiunt?1  adds  to  its  significance  in  the  present 
discussion.  A  line  of  Horace  may  be  added  to  this, 

reges  in  ipsos  imperium  est  lavish 

Any  other  of  the  gods  might  equally  well  have  been  considered  the  ruler 
over  kings,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  Jupiter  was  himself  rex.  There 
is,  too,  a  constant  association  of  Jupiter  with  kings.  He  it  was  who 
ratified  the  election  of  Numa  to  the  kingship.33  An  eagle,  the  bird  of 
Jove,  foretold  to  Tarquinius  Priscus  that  he  should  sit  on  a  throne.34 
And  when  a  similar  aquiline  messenger  of  the  gods  swooped  down  and 
carried  off  Lucumo's  cap,  he  realized  that  a  like  honor  was  in  store  for 
him.35  It  is  true  that  Romulus,  after  his  apotheosis,  gained  the  name 
Quirinus,  not  Jupiter,  but  at  any  rate,  Jupiter  had  his  share  in  the 
deification  of  this  first  king  of  Rome,  for  he  took  him  to  heaven  during 
a  thunderstorm.36  Livy  says  that  Jupiter,  Romulus  and  the  kings  all 
bore  the  same  name.37  This  may  indeed  be  only  the  title  rex,  never- 
theless the  statement  connects  the  kings  with  Jupiter.  Servius,  revers- 
ing the  order,  says  that  ancient  kings  often  assumed  the  names  of  gods.38 
Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  in  explaining  the  reason  for  the  establishing 
of  a  rex  sacrorum,  says  that  he  was  appointed  on  the  expulsion  of  the 
kings  because  the  name  of  the  royal  power  came  from  the  gods  and 
therefore  could  not  be  abolished.39  Finally,  it  was  Jupiter  who  was 
constantly  associated  with  the  emperors.40  Ovid  sees  the  oak  wreath 
over  the  door  of  the  house  of  Augustus,  and  wonders  whether  it  be  the 
temple  of  Jupiter  which  he  beholds;  then,  later  on,  he  unblushingly 
addresses  that  emperor  as  maxime  dive*1  Horace  invokes  Jupiter  as 
the  guardian  of  Augustus  and  implies  that  the  emperor  is  the  vice- 

31  Cic.  Rep.  1,  36,  56. 

32Hor.  Od.  3,  1,  6. 

33Liv.  1,  18,  9-10. 

34Aur.  Viet.  Vir.Ill.  6. 

35Liv.  1,  34,  8-9. 

36  Cf.  Cook  Class.  Rev.  18,  pp.  360  sqq. 

37Liv.  3,  39,  4. 

38  Serv.  Aen.  7,  180. 

39  Dion,  of  Hal.  4,  73-74. 

40Dio  Cass.  43,  14;  53,  16;  Ov.  F.  1,  612-614;  Met.  1,  562;  Suet.  Aug.  94-100; 
Calig.  19;  35;  Jul.  76;  Nero  10;  Tib.  26;  Tac.  Ann.  2,  83. 
41  Ov.  Trist.  3,  1,  35;  3,  1,  78. 


52  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

regent  of  the  god.42  Before  his  death,  Caesar  dreamt  that  he  was  soaring 
above  the  clouds  and  clasped  hands  with  Jupiter.43  Suetonius  records, 
also,  that  Octavius,  father  of  Augustus,  in  a  dream  saw  his  son  cum 
fulmine  et  sceptro  exumisque  lovis.44  The  same  author  gives  other  dreams, 
too,  connecting  Augustus  with  Jupiter.45  In  coins  commemorating  the 
consecratio  of  emperors  an  eagle  is  often  represented  bearing  the  soul 
aloft.46  Domitian  was  often  called  Jupiter,47  while  Caligula  appro- 
priately assumed  the  title  of  Jupiter  Lallans**  Augustus  and  Tiberius 
were  represented  on  cameos  as  Jupiter,49  and  similar  portraits  of  other 
emperors  are  to  be  seen.50 

One  other  very  important  consideration  is  that  not  only  the  flamen 
Dialis,  the  acknowledged  priest  of  Jupiter,  but  also  the  rex  sacrorum, 
together  with  consuls  and  generals,  and  later  on,  emperors,  possessed 
insignia  which  had  belonged  to  the  ancient  king.  These  things  per- 
tained to  the  gods  also,  especially  to  Jupiter.  Among  these  were  the 
trabea,  the  curule  chair  and  the  fasces.  In  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  4, 74, 
is  the  express  statement  that  consuls  were  allowed  to  keep  the  regalia 
of  kings,  especially  for  festal  days.  On  the  day  of  his  inauguration, 
the  consul  rode  to  the  Capitol  in  a  chariot,  drawn  by  white  horses,  the 
insignia  of  Jove.  Furthermore,  the  horses  were  sacrificed  to  Jupiter.51 
The  horses  and  chariot,  also,  as  well  as  a  gilded  sceptre,  crown  and 
eagle  added  glory  to  generals  in  their  triumphs.52  The  toga  picta  which 
the  triumphant  general  wore  was  preeminently  the  property  of  the 
Capitoline  Jove.  It  may  even  have  been  kept  in  the  temple,  for  Lam- 
pridius  states  that  Alexander  Severus  never  wore  it,  except  as  consul, 
and  then  it  was  the  same  one  that  other  consuls  wore,  de  lows  templo 

42Hor.  Od.   1,   12,  49-60. 

43  Suet.  Jul.  81. 

44  Suet.   Aug.  94. 

45  Suet.  Aug.  94. 

46Isid.  18,  2,  5;  Plainer  Top.  Rom.,  p.  379;  Stevenson  Diet,  of  Coins,  s.  v.  con- 
secratio; cf.  Suet.  Aug.  97. 

47  Mart.  4,  1;  4,  3;  4,  8,  12;  6,  10;  9,  86;  Stat.  Stiv.  1,  6,  25-26.    Cf.  Suet.  Dom. 
4;  13. 

48  Suet.  Calig.  28. 

49Baum.  Denk.  3,  pp.   1708-1710. 

60Overbeck  Kunstmyth.  Zeus  pp.  203  sqq.;  Furtwangler  Ant.  Gemmen  pi.  65,  48. 
61 /.  pp.  13  sqq. 

62Appian.  8,  66;  Dio  Cass.  44,  4-7;  Dion,  of  Hal.  4, 74;  Paulus-Fest.209;  Joseph. 
Bell.  lud.  7,  5,  3-6;  Minuc.  Felix.  22,  6;  Liv.  1,  1,  8,  2-3;  Plut.  Camill.  7,  1;  Q.  R. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  53 

sumptam™  Livy  expressly  states  that  generals,  when  celebrating  a  tri- 
umph, were  decorated  with  the  insignia  of  Jupiter  Optimus  Maximus.54 
Lydus,  moreover,  specifies  Caesar  and  Augustus  as  riding  into  the 
city  as  gods.55  Isidorus  gives  another  striking  feature  of  the  triumph: 
that  the  generals  smeared  their  faces  with  a  red  color,  quasi  imitarentur 
dimni  ignis  effigiem.^  Now  Pliny  gives  the  information  that  the  face 
of  the  statue  of  Jupiter  and  also  the  bodies  of  those  who  were  triumphing 
were  painted  red.57  It  seems  clear,  then,  that  the  generals  were  imi- 
tating not  "divine  fire,"  but  the  gods  themselves.  The  crown  which 
was  offered  to  Caesar,  he  sent  to  the  Capitoline  Jove,  with  the  statement 
that  he  alone  was  king,58  thereby  showing  that  he  considered  one  who 
wore  a  crown  as  assuming  the  role  of  Jupiter.  But,  even  though  he 
could  not  take  the  title  rex,  Caesar  nevertheless  could,  and  did,  receive 
divine  honors.  He  had  a  priest,  statues,  a  chariot,  etc.,  all  of  which 
were  emblems  of  godhead.59  Politically,  the  Romans  would  not  ac- 
knowledge a  king,  but  they  had  no  objections  apparently,  to  considering 
their  rulers  gods. 

From  the  foregoing  examples  it  has  been  shown  that  early  kings 
had  the  attributes  of  Jupiter,  that  later,  consuls,  generals,  priests,  and 
emperors  had  the  same  insignia.  If,  then,  the  rex  sacrorum,  the  fiamen 
Dialis,  consuls,  generals,  and  emperors  severally  performed  duties  all 
of  which  once  belonged  to  an  actual  king,  their  regalia  and  privileges 
must  have  pertained  to  the  individual  whose  powers  they  had  assumed 
and  divided  among  themselves.  If  these  emblems  were  once  the  dis- 
tinguishing marks  of  a  deity,  then  the  king,  who  had  formerly  borne 
them  all,  must  have  been  the  mortal  representation  of  the  god  whose 
attributes  he  had. 

113;  Serv.  Aen.  7,  612;  12,  206;  Suet.  Nero.  4,  25;  Tacit.  Ann.  4,  26;  Verg.  Aen.  7, 
612;  12,  206;  Zonaras  7,  21;  cf./.  Chapt.  VIII,  note  12;  for  a  discussion  of  triumphs 
and  references  see  Frazer  Golden  Bough,  Magic  Art,  pt.  2,  pp.  174  sq. 
53Lamprid.  Alex.  Sever.  40. 

54Liv.  5,  23;  10,  7;  see  also  Jul.  Cap.  Gord.  4,  4;  Juv.  10,  38;  Mayor  on  Juv.  10, 
36;  10, 38. 

55Lyd.  Magist.  Reip.  Rom.  2,  2;  2,  3;  cf.  Mart.  7,  8,  2. 
56  Isid.  18,  2,  6;  Serv.  Ed.  10,  27,  states  the  same  fact. 
"Plin.  N.  H.  33,  7,  36,  111. 
58Dio  Cass.  44,  11;  Suet.  Jul.  79. 
69  Suet.  Jul.  76;  /.  p.  47. 


54  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

If,  then,  the  ancient  king  had  been  the  representative  of  Jupiter  on 
earth,  of  course  the  rex  sacrorum,  the  survival  of  the  actual  king,  must 
have  been  a  priest  of  Jupiter,  not  of  Janus,  as  has  been  generally  sup- 
posed. 

But  if  this  be  true,  Jupiter  had  two  priests.  And,  indeed,  the  facts 
that  are  known,  as  well  as  the  traditions  that  have  been  handed  down, 
about  the  establishment  of  the  body  of  priests  at  Rome,  would  lead 
to  the  belief  that  this  was  the  fact.  The  Romans  thought  that  Numa 
instituted  the  three  great  famines  and  the  pontifex  maximus™  It  is 
worth  noting  that  it  is  said  that  he  reserved  for  himself  certain  important 
duties,  "especially  those  that  pertain  to  the  flamen  Dialis.61  That  is 
to  say,  the  rites  which  in  later  times  were  performed  by  the  priest  of 
Jupiter,  were  the  very  ones  that  Numa  did  not  resign,  a  circumstance 
that  forms  another  link  connecting  the  king  to  Jupiter.  But,  as  Livy 
goes  on  to  say,  Numa  nevertheless  appointed  a  priest  to  Jupiter,  because 
he  felt  that  many  of  his  royal  successors,  being  more  interested  in  war 
than  in  religion,  would  neglect  the  priesthood;  while  the  appointment  of 
a  regular  priest  would  make  the  continuance  of  the  rites  certain.  The 
flamen  Dialis,  then,  stood  in  the  same  relation  to  Jupiter  that  the  flamen 
Martialis  did  to  Mars,  and  the  flamen  Quirinalis  to  Quirinus,  except 
for  the  fact  that  the  deities  whom  the  flamines  of  Mars  and  of  Quirinus 
served  were  more  or  less  distant  divinities,  whereas  the  god  of  the 
flamen  Dialis  was  partly  conceived  of  as  an  etherial  being,  partly  as 
incarnated  in  the  earthly  king. 

The  religious  organization,  then,  during  the  regal  period,  after 
Numa  had  established  his  priesthoods,  may  be  classified  as  follows: 
the  king,  who  discharged  those  duties  which  especially  concerned  royal- 
ty; a  pontifex  maximus,  who  was  the  head  of  the  hierarchy;62  and  three 
great  flamines,  who  looked  after  the  rites  pertaining  to  their  respective 
deities  (consideration  of  the  lesser  flamines  is  not  necessary  to  the 
present  discussion).  The  appointment  of  the  pontifex  maximus  and 
his  subordinates  was  the  beginning  of  the  separation  of  religion  and 
state.  But,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  royal  office,  this  divorce  could 

60  Cic.  Rep.  2,  14,  26;  Florus  Epit.  1,  2;  Lactant.  Instit.  1,  22,  4;  Liv.  1,  20;  4,  4,  1; 
Plut.  Numa  7;  9;  Varro  L.  L.  7,  45;  Aur.  Viet.  Vir.  III.  3. 
"Liv.  1,20. 
62  Paulus-Fest.  126. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  55 

not  be  complete.  Therefore  Numa,  whose  name  doubtless  stands  for 
a  long  line  of  rulers  who  established  these  customs  gradually,  is  said 
to  have  reserved  for  himself  some  important  ceremonies.  These  would 
be  such  as  were  inseparable  from,  or  preliminary  to,  some  secular  affairs 
which  he  could  not  afford  to  let  slip  from  his  hands;  or  they  would  be 
those  which,  because  of  their  nature,  required  a  king  for  their  perfor- 
mance. Now,  when  the  king  expected  to  be  away,  at  war,  for  instance, 
or  was  for  any  reason  unwilling  to  burden  himself  with  even  the  duties 
which  he  had  reserved  for  his  own  supervision,  he  could,  without  in 
any  way  losing  his  control  over  these  rites,  appoint  a  substitute  to 
perform  them  in  his  stead.  That  .this  was  customary  is  shown  by  the 
Acta  Arvalium,  where  there  is  given  an  instance  of  a  person  officiating 
at  the  regular  sacrifice  in  the  place  of  the  usual  priest.63  From  an  old 
formula  of  Cato's  it  is  clear  that  such  substitutes  often  performed  rites 
even  for  private  individuals.64  It  is  certain  that  a  war-loving  king 
would  often  avail  himself  of  this  privilege.  And,  indeed,  in  Livy  1,  33, 
an  actual  instance  is  given,  Ancus  demandata  cur  a  sacrorum  flaminibus 
sacerdotibusque  aliis  exercitu  now  conscripto  profectus,  Politorium, 
urbem  Latinorum  m  cepit.  The  proxy  of  a  king  would  be  temporarily 
a  priest-king,  a  rex  sacrorum. 

Since  the  pontifex  maximus  was  the  head  of  the  state  religion,  he 
was  naturally  the  one  to  remind  the  king  when  the  time  came  for  the 
performing  of  the  royal  ceremonies;  and,  in  case  the  king  did  not  wish 
to  officiate,  he  might  also  suggest  a  suitable  proxy,  or  appoint  one 
himself.  Consequently,  when  the  Republic  was  set  up,  the  pontifex 
maximus  may  have  been  a  man  of  considerable  power,  which  was  lodged 
in  his  own  person,  whereas  the  rex  sacrorum  was  only  the  shadow  of  a 
king,  a  mere  proxy.  The  fact  that  the  office  of  pontifex  maximus  was 
so  desirable  as  to  be  the  object  of  keen  contests,  and  to  be  held,  in 
imperial  times,  by  the  emperor  himself,  whereas  that  of  rex  was  never 
an  object  of  contention,65  reinforces  this  supposition.  Although  con- 
jectural, this  is  more  reasonable  than  the  theory,  based  on  the  traditions 
of  the  Romans  themselves,  that,  at  the  establishment  of  the  Republic, 
the  people  from  fear  and  hatred  of  the  name  of  king,  gave  most  of  the 
religious  duties  to  a  pontifex  maximus  created  for  that  purpose.  Feel- 

63  OX.  VI,  2066,  lines  2-3. 

MCato  R.  R.  139. 

65  Liv.  25,  5,  2;  27,  8,  4-5;  8-9;  Dio  Cas.  54,  27;  Dion,  of  Hal.  4,  74;  5,  1. 


56  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

ing,  however,  that  they  ought  to  have  a  religious  king,  they  created  the 
rex  sacrorum,  but  they  made  his  power  very  small,  in  order  to  discourage 
any  attempt  on  his  part  to  gain  a  real  kingship.  If  this  had  been  the 
motive  of  these  early  republicans,  they  might  just  as  easily  have  abol- 
ished the  kingship  entirely  and  given  all  the  religious  duties  of  the  ruler 
to  the  pontifex  maximus  or  to  some  other.  It  is  more  reasonable  to  think 
that  the  title  of  rex  sacrorum  did  not  inspire  fear  or  hatred,  because  the 
people  had  long  been  familiar  with  it  as  belonging  to  a  person  who 
could  do  no  harm;  that  the  offices  of  pontifex  maximus  and  of  rex  sacro- 
rum were  not  established  at  the  expulsion  of  the  kings;  but  that  they  were 
the  result  of  a  slow  growth;  that,  at  the  establishment  of  the  Republic 
the  Romans  found  the  religious  and  secular  power  of  the  state  already 
lodged,  to  a  certain  extent,  in  different  persons ;  and  that,  in  accordance 
with  their  well-known  conservatism,  especially  in  religious  matters, 
they  left  the  religious  hierarchy  as  it  was,  and  simply  gave  the  secular 
power  of  the  king  to  the  two  consuls.  Even  this  last  step  was  no  very  vio- 
lent revolution,  since  they  were  entirely  familiar  with  the  idea  of  elec- 
tion of  kings.66 

These  conjectures  lend  reasonableness  to  the  contradictory  state  of 
affairs  found  in  the  existence  of: 

1.  A  pontifex  maximus,  who  is  the  head  of  the  religious  organiza- 
tion of  the  state,  and  who  is,  however,  not  in  any  way  the  successor  of 
the  ancient  king; 

2.  A  rex  sacrorum,  who  nominally  ranks  first  of  all  the  priests,  who 
seems  to  be  the  survival  of  the  primitive  king,  and  yet  is  subordinate 
to  the  pontifex  maximus,  and  appointed  by  him; 

3.  Vestal  virgins,  who  are  the  survival  of  the  king's  daughters, 
but  are  nevertheless  officially  the  daughters  of  the  pontifex  maximus, 
not  of  the  rex  sacrorum] 

4.  Royal  titles,  insignia,  etc.,  which  are  borne  by  the  gods,  the  rex 
sacrorum,  the  pontifex  maximus,  priests  of  Jupiter,  consuls  and  generals, 
and  emperors. 

So  far  evidence  has  been  produced  showing  that  the  rex  sacrorum 
was  a  priest  of  Jupiter;  it  remains  to  bring  forward  the  negative  evi- 
dence by  showing  that  he  did  not  belong  to  Janus.  This  priest  has  been 
assigned  to  Janus  because  such  an  arrangement  fits  in  so  well  with  the 

6«  Cic.  Rep.  2,  17,  31;  2,  20,  35;  2,  21,  37;  Liv.  1,  18;  cf.  Sail.  Bell.  Cat.  6,  6-7. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  57 

evident  parallelism  between  household  and  state  worship,67  and  because 
it  has  been  thought  to  be  corroborated  by  two  passages,  one  in  Ovid, 
and  one  in  the  Ada  Arvalium.  In  Fasti  I,  318,  Ovid  says  of  the 
agonalia  of  January  9 : 

lanus  agonali  luce  piandus  erit. 

In  the  following  lines  he  adds  that  the  rex  sacrorum  sacrificed  a  ram  on 
that  day.  In  the  Acta  Arvalium™  a  ram  is  mentioned  as  the  offering 
to  Janus.  From  these  two  passages  it  has  been  assumed69  that  the  rex 
was  a  priest  of  Janus,  and  that  he  offered  a  ram  to  Janus  on  the  first 
Agonalia  of  the  year.  Lauren tius  Lydus,  an  authority  usually  over- 
looked in  this  connection,  and  with  reason,  since  he  was  a  late  Greek 
writer  showing  little  knowledge  of  Roman  affairs,  says  that  this  agonalia 
was  a  festival  of  the  air.  He  then  goes  on  to  say  that  Janus  is  the  air.70 
Evidently  he,  at  least,  thought  that  the  day  was  sacred  to  Janus,  prob- 
ably basing  his  belief  on  the  fact  that  it  fell  in  the  month  of  January. 
Besides,  by  the  sixth  century,  when  Lydus  lived,  the  mythology  of  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  had  become  so  impregnated  with  Oriental  mysti- 
cism that  its  original  character  was  obscured;  and  Janus,  accordingly, 
had  become  a  cosmic  deity,  identified  with  Jupiter.71  Moreover,  Lydus 
adds  no  further  information  about  the  nature  of  the  ceremonies,  but, 
by  an  excursus  into  Callimachus,  attempts  to  explain  the  etymology 
of  the  word  lanus.  His  philosophizing,  therefore,  is  worth  nothing  as 
evidence  of  the  identity  of  the  god  of  this  agonalia.  In  Ovid's  time, 
on  the  contrary,  the  rite  was  still  being  performed;  and,  under  the 
encouragement  of  Augustus,  every  effort  was  being  made  to  preserve 
the  ancient  ritual  in  its  purity.  What  Ovid  says  about  the  ceremony  is 
consequently  worthy  of  some  degree  of  respect.  After  making  many 
conjectures  about  the  etymology  and  meaning  of  the  word  agonium, 

67  Chapter  VI,  and  the  beginning  of  Chapter  VII. 

68  CIL.  VI,  2099,  p.  559,  line  24,  and  p.  561,  line  9;  2104,  p.  569,  line  2;  2107,  p. 
575,  line  8. 

69  Fowler  Rom.  Fest.  p.  282  (Fowler,  however,  admits  the  doubt,  cf.  p.  288); 
Mommsen  CIL.  I,  p.  375;  p.  383,  Jan.  9;  Pauly  Real-Encyd.  vol.  I,  s.v.  agonium; 
Wissowa  de  Feriis  Anni  Rom.  p.  XII;  Relig.  u.  Kult.  pp.  21;  103;  Bailey  Rdig.  of  Anc. 
Rome,  77. 

7°Lyd.  Mens.  4,  2. 

71  Cf.  with  Lydus,  Proclus  Hymn  to  Hecate  and  Janus. 


58  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

and  in  these  guesses  he  displays  the  same  sort  of  pedantic  ignorance 
as  the  other  etymologists,  Ovid  says: 

Ita  rex  placare  sacrorum 

numina  lanigerae  coniuge  debet  ovis.72 

Varro,  also,  states  that  the  rex  sacrificed  a  ram  on  the  agonalia,  but 
does  not  name  the  divinity  honored.73  The  word  numina  in  the  pas- 
sage from  Ovid  may  mean  that  more  than  one  god  was  invoked.  It  may, 
however,  be  no  more  than  an  instance  of  the  common  use  of  the  plural 
for  the  singular.  This  one  word,  therefore,  cannot  be  taken  as  proof 
that  Janus  was  not  the  god  of  the  ceremony.  But  it  is  well  known  that 
Janus  held  the  first  place  in  the  list  of  gods,  and  was  regularly  invoked 
in  prayer  before  the  other  gods.  When  a  complete  list  was  given, 
Vesta  held  the  last  place.74  This  was  so  common  that  "Janus  and 
Vesta"  came  to  be  a  collective  name  for  the  body  of  deities  to  whom 
prayer  was  usually  offered;  as,  for  example,  Juvenal  says: 

et  farre  et  vino  lanum  Vestamque  rogabat.75 

Even  when  the  sacrifice  was  not  to  be  made  to  the  whole  company  of 
great  gods,  including  Janus,  but  to  some  one  divinity,  a  preliminary 
offering  was  generally  given  to  Janus,  as  is  attested  by  many  formulas,78 
and  by  these  lines  of  Ovid: 

Cur  quamvis  aliorum  numina  placem, 

lane,  tibi  primum  tura  merumque  fero?77 

Macrobius,  also,  states  the  same  fact:  invocarique  primum,  cum  alicui 
deo  res  divina  celebratur.78  In  view  of  this  fact,  it  seems  most  probable 
that  the  I  anus  piandus  simply  means,  "a  sacrifice  must  be  made." 

72  Ov.  F.  1,333-334. 

"Varro  L.  L.  6,  12. 

74 /.  Chapt.  II. 

76Juv.  6,  386. 

76 /.  Chapt.  II. 

77  Ov.  F.  1,  171-172.      In  Ov.  F.  3,  881-882,  almost  the  same  expression  is  used: 
lanus  adorandus  cumque  hoc  Concordia  mitis 

et  Romana  Salus  araque  Pacis  erit. 

Peter  takes  this  festival  to  include  Janus.  There  is  nothing,  however,  in  the  refer- 
ences to  the  Altar  of  Peace  on  which  to  base  the  supposition  that  Janus  had  anything 
to  do  with  it.  The  Calendars  do  not  mention  him  with  the  dedication  of  the  altar, 
CIL.  I,  pp.  313;  385,  Jan.  29  and  30;  Dio  Cass.  54,  25;  Mon.  Ancyr.  12,  37-41;  Platner, 
pp.  361-362;  cf.  /.  p.  9.) 

78Macrob  1,  9,  9. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LITE  AND  CULT  59 

To  be  sure,  Ovid  does  not  disclose  the  identity  of  the  deity  to  whom 
a  sacrifice  is  made  on  this  agonalia.  It  is  possible,  therefore,  either 
that  the  ancient  god  had  been  forgotten,  while  his  festival  survived, 
as  was  the  case  in  the  Lupercalia,  or  that  the  offering  was  made  to  the 
great  gods  collectively.  At  any  rate,  there  is  no  reason  for  thinking 
that  Janus  was  the  god  honored,  or  that  the  rex  sacrorum  was  his  priest. 
Since  the  rex  was  a  priest  of  Jupiter,  there  is  a  bare  possibility  that  this 
sacrifice  at  which  he  officiated  was  held  in  honor  of  that  god.  If  this  had 
been  the  case,  however,  it  seems  probable  that  Ovid  would  have  men- 
tioned the  fact,  as  he  does  when  describing  the  ceremonies  of  the  Ides.79 
Since  no  particular  deity  is  mentioned  for  January  9,  it  seems  more 
likely  that  the  day  was  celebrated  in  honor  of  the  great  divinities  of  the 
state.  And  the  rex  because  of  his  position  of  priest  of  Jupiter,  would 
not  have  been  debarred  from  performing  a  sacrifice  to  the  other  gods  of 
the  community.  The  ancient  king,  being  head  of  the  state  religion, 
would  certainly  worship  all  the  deities  of  the  commonwealth.  The 
rex  sacrorum,  his  successor,  would  do  the  same. 

The  calendars  give  no  mark  except  AGON  for  January  9,80  but,  beside 
the  three  other  days  thus  marked,  there  are  noted  some  festivals:  on 
March  17,  the  festival  in  honor  of  Liber,81  on  May  21,  that  in  honor  of 
Veiovis,82  and  on  December  11,  the  Septimontium.**  Whether  or  not 
the  other  festivals  marked  in  the  calendars  as  falling  on  the  days  of  the 
agonalia  had  any  connection  with  the  word  agonium  or  with  each  other, 
is  not  clear.  From  the  connection  of  the  priest  of  Jupiter  with  the 
first  one,  it  might  be  assumed  that  all  the  days  referred  to  the  same  god, 
and  perhaps  celebrated  different  phases  of  his  activity.  The  whole 
matter  is,  however,  extremely  doubtful.84 

All  the  evidence  so  far  cited  has  gone  to  prove  that  the  rex  sacrorum 
was  a  priest  of  Jupiter,  not  of  Janus.  There  exists  the  difficulty  that, 
if  this  servitor  is  taken  away  from  Janus,  the  great  god  of  entrances 
is  left  entirely  bereft  of  priest  or  ftamen.  Modern  authors  seem  to  have 

79  Ov.  F.  1,  587  sqq. 

80  CIL.  I,  p.  383,  Jan.  9. 

61  CIL.  I,  p.  388;  Varro  L.  L.  6,  14. 

82  CIL.,  I,  p.  394. 

83  CIL.  I,  p.  407;  Paulus-Fest.  340. 

84  Fowler  Rom.  Fest.  p.  281.  Other  references  to  the  agonium:  Paulus-Fest.  10; 
Lyd.  Mens.  3,  25;  Ov.  F.  5,  721-722  (this  is  simply  a  cross-reference  to  the  first  book, 


60  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

assigned  the  rex  sacrorum  to  Janus  partly  from  a  desire  to  see  the  impor- 
tant office  filled.  However,  Janus  is  not  the  only  deity  of  recognized 
dignity  who  is  thus  destitute.  There  are  several  gods  who  lackflamines, 
among  them  Consus,  a  divinity  of  some  rank  in  the  state  ritual.85 

There  remain  to  be  discussed  the  few  facts  that  are  known  about 
the  rex  sacrorum,  and  to  show  that  they  are  not  inconsistent  with  the 
theory  that  he  was  an  incarnate  priest  of  Jupiter.  He  was  the  first 
in  the  or  do  sacerdotum.  Consequently,  at  the  banquets  of  the  priests, 
he  sat  at  the  head  of  the  table.  This  was  not  because  he  was  a  priest 
of  Janus,  who  came  first  in  the  list  of  gods,  but  because  he  was  originally 
the  head  of  the  whole  state  religion.  Next  to  him  came  the  flamen 
Dialis.^  This  sequence,  again,  was  due  not  to  the  superiority  of  Janus 
over  Jupiter,  but  to  the  predominance  of  the  incarnate  Jupiter-king 
over  his  own  priest. 

The  rex  sacrorum  held  office  for  life.87  This  may  have  been  because 
the  ancient  king  had  reigned  as  long  as  he  lived.  His  person  was  invio- 
lable.88 His  wife  was  called  the  regina  sacrorum.^  He  could  hold  no 
other  office.90  This  was  not  due  to  fear  that  he  might  increase  his 
power,  but  to  the  very  nature  of  his  priesthood.  For,  as  has  been  said, 
the  early  kings  found  the  taboos  and  religious  duties  of  their  office  too 
burdensome.  They  appointed  therefore  " kings  of  sacred  things" 
to  assist  in  bearing  the  burden  of  royalty.  Certainly,  then,  the  office 
would  not  be  given  to  a  man  who  had  duties  of  his  own.  Plutarch  gives 
the  interesting  information  that  the  rex  was  not  allowed  to  make  a 
speech  in  any  public  place.91  This  seems  to  emphasize  his  position  as 
a  mere  proxy,  who  could  do  nothing  on  his  own  initiative. 

On  the  first  day  of  the  month  the  rex  sacrificulus,  as  the  rex  sacrorum 
is  sometimes  called,  summoned  the  people  to  the  Curia  Calabra,  on  the 

where  the  question  is  treated  more  fully;  it  does  not  mean  that  the  festival  is  con- 
cerned with  Janus.  Janum  simply  means  January) ;  Varro  L.  L.  6,  12  sq. 

^Wissowa  Relig.   u.  Kult.  pp.   20-21. 

a'Fest.   185;  Cell.   10,   15,  21. 

87  Dion,  of  Hal.  4,  74. 

88  Serv.  Aen.  8,  646. 

89C7L.  VI,  2123;  2124;  Macrob.  1,  15,  19. 
"Dion,  of  Hal.  4,  74;  5,  1;  Plut.  Q.  R.  63. 
91  Plut.  Q.  R.  63. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LITE  AND  CULT  61 

Capitoline,  and,  after  performing  a  sacrifice,  announced  to  them  on 
which  day  the  Nones  of  that  month  would  fall.  Meantime  his  wife,  the 
regina  sacrorum,  sacrificed  in  the  Regia.  On  the  Nones,  the  rex  again 
assembled  the  people  and  gave  them  information  about  the  festivals 
for  the  month.92  This  assembling  of  the  people  was  a  duty  which  the 
early  king  would  naturally  not  relegate  to  another,  although  he  gave 
up  most  of  the  purely  religious  rites  to  different  priests.  But,  since  the 
right  to  hold  an  assembly  was  bound  up  with  his  secular  power,  he 
would  realize  that  to  part  with  it  was  unsafe.  But  for  the  king's  proxy 
to  hold  the  assembly  would  be  perfectly  safe,  for  that  was  exactly  the 
same  as  if  the  king  had  done  it  in  person.  Then,  as  the  assembly 
gradually  lost  its  political  importance,  it  would  be  most  natural  for 
the  king  to  leave  it  more  and  more  in  the  hands  of  the  proxy,  especially 
when  the  occasion  was  a  religious  one,  recurring  with  irksome  frequency. 
This  may  explain  why  the  rex  sacrorum  convened  the  popular  assembly. 
At  the  establishment  of  the  Republic,  since  this  convoking  of  the  people 
had  come  to  be  looked  upon  as  one  of  his  regular  duties,  it  remained 
under  his  jurisdiction.  These  interpretations  of  the  various  duties  of 
the  rex  sacrorum  are,  of  course,  merely  conjectural;  but  they  seem  rea- 
sonable. The  growing  unimportance  of  the  old  assembly,  over  which 
the  king  presided,  can  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  in  historical  times, 
it  was  called  but  twice  a  year,  to  legalize  wills  and  adoptions.  The 
days  on  which  it  convened  are  marked  on  the  calendars  Q.  R.  C.  F.  In 
a  note  in  Paulus-Festus,  there  seems  to  be  a  confusion  between  these 
days  and  that  of  the  Regifugium.93  The  note  in  the  Praenestine  Calen- 
dar, however,  seems  to  be  correct,  in  which  it  is  stated  that  the  days 
were  so  marked  because  after  the  assembly  had  been  held,  business 
might  be  resumed,94  and  Varro  states  that  Q.  R.  C.  F.  means  quando  rex 
comitiavit;  fas.95 

There  is  a  reference  in  Paulus-Festus  to  regiae  feriae.  This  festival 
may  have  been  performed  by  the  king  in  early  times  and  by  the  rex 
sacrorum  in  later  times,  if  the  name  can  be  taken  to  mean  anything. 
Unfortunately  the  ceremony  is  not  referred  to  anywhere,  at  least  by 

92Macrob.  1,  15,  9-12;  1,  15,  19;  Serv.  Aen.  8,  654;  Varro  L.  L.  6,  27-28. 
93  Fest.  258;  278. 
94C7L.  I,  p.  315. 

95  Varro  L.  L.  6,  31;  see  also  C1L.  I,  pp.  301;  315;  367  and  Mommsen's  note; 
Fowler  Rom,  Fest.  pp.  63  sqq. 


62  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

this  name,  except  in  the  very  imperfect  passage  in  Festus;  Regiae  Feriae 

dictae  videntur,  quae  fiunt  fori,  comitiique  lustrandi  causa 

fulguris  fit ubi  quo  regiae  feriae.96  These  words  seem  to 

refer  to  some  kind  of  piacular  offering  for  lightning;  if  so,  the  fact  that 
the  rex  presided  is  another  link  connecting  him  and  Jupiter,  the  thun- 
derer. 

As  has  been  mentioned  before,  the  Regia  was  the  survival  of  the 
residence  of  the  early  kings.97  Therefore  it  would  be  natural  to  suppose 
that  the  rex  sacrorum  lived  in  it.  But  it  is  not  certain  whether  it  was 
the  residence  of  the  rex  or  of  the  pontifex  or  of  both.98  If  it  was  the 
home  of  one  of  these  exclusively,  the  other  may  have  had  an  office  in 
it.  At  any  rate,  the  rex  sacrorum  and  his  wife  performed  sacrifices 
there.99  Possibly  the  custom  changed  at  different  times,  and  possibly 
too,  when  the  Forum  ceased  to  be  a  desirable  place  in  which  to  live, 
both  these  dignitaries  moved  to  a  more  pleasant  neighborhood,  merely 
keeping  offices  in  the  Regia. 

None  of  the  data  here  given  about  the  duties  and  privileges  of  the 
rex  sacrorum  are  inconsistent  with  the  theory  that  he  was  a  priest  of 
Jupiter.  Moreover,  there  is  very  little  to  connect  this  shadow  of  royalty 
with  the  simplicity  of  Janus,  who  had  very  little  to  do  with  kings. 

96Fest.  278. 

97 /.  p.  45. 

98Dio  Cass.  54,  27;  Paulus-Fest.  279;  290  (these  passages  appear  to  contradict 
each  other);  Serv.  Aen.  8,  363;  Fowler  Rom.  Fest.  pp.  282;  335;  Huelsen  Rom.  For., 
Carter's  trans,  pp.  180  sqq.;  Platner  pp.  210  sqq.;  Richter  Topogr.  der  Stadt  Rom, 
pp.  91-92. 

99  Paulus-Fest.  278. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

RELATION  OF  JANUS  TO  OTHER  DEITIES 

Jupiter 

Much  of  the  difficulty  about  the  overlapping  functions  of  deities 
arises  from  a  misconception  of  the  origin  and  character  of  divinity.  No 
deity  was  patron  of  only  one  thing;  as,  for  instance,  Apollo  was  not 
god  of  the  sun  and  of  nothing  else,  nor  Diana  of  the  moon  only.  Deities 
may  have  originated  as  specialists,  but  they  could  not  long  remain  so. 
If,  for  instance,  one  man  prayed  to  his  spear  for  protection,  another 
might  supplicate  his  door,  and  immediately  there  would  ensue  a  con- 
fusion of  the  functions  of  the  two  numina.  So  Mars,  the  field  god, 
became  a  war  god.  So  did  Jupiter,  the  sky  god. 

But  the  confusion  between  Jupiter  and  Janus  is  greatest  of  all,  for 
both  seem  to  be  supreme.  It  is  these  irreconcilable  claims  that  led  to 
the  theory  that  the  two  were  identical.1  Not  only  modern  scholars, 
but  the  ancients,  also,  were  disturbed  by  this  similarity  in  the  char- 
acteristics of  Jupiter  and  Janus.  St.  Augustine  asks:  Cum  ergo  et 
lanus  mundus  sit,  et  lupiter  mundus  sit,  unusque  sit  mundus,  quare 
duo  dii  sint,  lanus  et  lupiter?2  He  quotes  Varro  for  a  kind  of  explana- 
tion: quoniam  penes  lanum  sunt  prima,  penes  lovem  summa.  But,  as 
is  shown  throughout  this  paper,  Janus  did  not  originally  occupy  so 
lofty  a  position  as  that  assigned  him  by  Augustine;  he  was  a  lowly 
doorkeeper.  Neither  was  Jupiter  so  noble  a  conception;  he  was  an 
earthly  king.  It  was  only  after  a  long  period,  when  the  Romans  had 
become  acquainted  with  the  philosophic  ideas  of  the  Greeks,  that  they 
gave  to  their  gods  the  sublime  character  of  world  deities. 

The  following  inscription  has  been  taken  as  evidence  that  Janus 
and  Jupiter  were  identical: 

I  O  V  I 
D  I  A  N  O 

C  .  H  E  R  R  E 

1  Cook  Class.  Rev.  18,  p.  368;  Frazer  Lect.  on  Kingship,  pp.  285  sqq.;  Golden  Bough, 
Magic  Art,  pt.  2,  pp.  381  sqq.;  Linde  de  lano  summo  Rom.  deo. 

2  Aug.  C.  D.  7,  10;  cf.  4,  11;  7,  9;  7,  11. 


64  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

N  .  N  I  V  S  (Sic) 
CANDIDVS 
V  .  S  .  L  .  M  .3 

This  has  been  supposed  (thus  Orelli-Henzen  no.  5622)  to  be  dedicated 
to  a  single  deity,  Jupiter  Janus.  It  may  just  as  well  be  taen  to  mean, 
"to  Jupiter  and  to  Janus."  Many  other  inscriptions  can  be  found  in 
which  the  names  of  divinities  are  combined  without  punctuation  or 
conjunction.  One  such  is  the  following: 

IOVI      OPTIMO 
MAXIMO    IUNO 
NI      REGINAE      MIN 
ERVAE      SANCTAE 
SOLI    MITHRAE etc.4 

The  first  inscription  is,  moreover,  very  poorly  cut,  as  can  be  seen  from 
the  copy.  Surely  it  is  useless  as  evidence  about  the  name  of  the  god, 
when  even  the  name  of  the  man  who  set  it  up  is  incorrectly  written. 
But  St.  Augustine  unconsciously  adds  to  the  passage  quoted  above, 
the  test  by  which  it  can  be  determined  whether  or  not  the  two 
divinities  were  the  same:  seorsus  habent  templa,  seorsus  aras,  diversa 
sacra.  If  two  divinities  differ  in  place  of  worship,  in  cult,  in  origin  and 
in  name,  a  few  similar  functions,  or  qualities,  will  not  make  them  iden- 
tical. 

Even  in  the  literary  period  of  Rome's  history,  there  was  little  in 
common  between  Jupiter  Optimus  Maximus,  with  his  triumphal  robes 
and  crowns  and  pomp  of  sacrifice,  and  Janus,  whose  name  came  at  the 
beginning  of  every  prayer,  to  be  sure,  but  for  whose  worship  a  few  cakes, 
or,  at  most,  a  ram  sufficed.  Both  were  elevated  by  the  concepts  of 
philosophers  into  world  deities.  But  it  is  to  be  noted  that  other  deities, 
also,  share  in  this  elevating  process.  To  quote  St.  Augustine  again: 
Ipse  in  aethere  sit  lupiter,  ipse  in  acre  luno,  ipse  in  mari  Neptunus, 
in  lano  initiator etc.5  Having  begun,  then,  in  entirely  dif- 
ferent strata  of  religious  conceptions,  Janus  and  Jupiter  arrived,  finally 
at  the  same  goal. 

3C7L.  5,  783. 
4C7L.  8,  4578. 
8S.  Aug.  C.  D.  4,  11. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  65 

Saturn 

Saturn  was  an  ancient  god  of  agriculture.  It  is  natural,  therefore, 
that  he  should  have  some  characteristics  in  common  with  the  weather 
god,  Jupiter.  One  strange  rite  resembling  some  of  the  ceremonies  of 
Jupiter  is  recorded  by  Professor  Frazer.6  The  Roman  soldiers  on  the 
Danube  in  their  celebration  of  the  Saturnalia,  slew  a  youth  who  was 
dressed  to  impersonate  the  god  Saturn.  Arguing  from  the  resemblance 
of  this  ceremony  to  the  cult  of  the  human  Jupiter,  Professor  Frazer 
comes  to  the  conclusion  that  Jupiter,  Janus  and  Saturn  were  different 
forms  of  the  same  deity.  It  is  possible,  as  Professor  Frazer  says,  that 
the  worship  of  a  human  Jupiter  may  have  been  brought  in  by  a  con- 
quering people  and  may  have  supplanted  that  of  a  human  Saturn.  In 
this  way  the  two  gods  may  have  become  blended.  But,  if  the  reiterated 
rule  that  difference  in  cult  marks  difference  in  deity  is  to  be  upheld, 
then  the  two  are  distinct  divinities. 

Mention  has  been  made  of  the  myths  concerning  Janus  and  Saturn.7 
In  these  stories  Janus  conies  to  Italy,  bringing  new  ideas  of  civilization, 
or,  he  hospitably  receives  Saturn,  from  whom  he  obtains  knowledge  of 
the  new  arts  of  life.  He  is  called  the  son  of  Hecate  and  of  the  sky,8 
and  is  sometimes  given  a  sister  Camise,  a  son  Aether,  and  a  daughter 
Olisthene.9  He  is  the  founder  of  the  Janiculum,  as  Saturn  is  of  Satur- 
nia.10  These  stories  all  seem  to  be  concerned  with  the  very  early  impor- 
tation of  merchandise  and  of  certain  new  ideas  of  civilization.  These 
the  Romans  seem  to  have  received  from  the  Greeks,  along  with  an 
anthropomorphic  form  of  Hermes,  whom  they  identified  with  their 
Janus. 

Juno 

The  title  Junonius  would  seem  to  indicate  some  connection  between 
Janus  and  Juno.  Macrobius  argues  from  it  that  the  Kalends  were 

6  Frazer  Lectures  on  the  Early  Hist,  of  the  Kingship,  Chapt.  9.     (In  Herodian  1, 
16,  is  the  statement  that  the  Saturnalia  was  celebrated  in  honor  of  Janus,  which  might 
be  taken  as  additional  evidence  for  Professor  Frazer's  theory.    This  is  clearly,  how- 
ever, a  confusion  on  the  part  of  the  historian,  for  he  goes  on  to  say,  as  a  reason  for  the 
celebration,  that  Janus  received  Saturn  during  his  exile.) 

7  /.  Chap.  V. 
8Arnob.  3,  29. 
9Athen.  15,  46. 

10Arnob.  1,  36;  3,  29;  Isid.  15,  1,  50;  Macrob.  1,  7,  23;  Serv.  Aen.  8,  357. 


66  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

sacred  to  Janus  as  well  as  to  Juno.11  That  this  is  erroneous  has  been 
shown.12  Servius  thought  that,  because  Juno  had  at  one  time  opened 
the  gates  of  Janus  Geminus,  Janus  received  a  name  from  her.13  But 
the  story  told  in  Vergil  is,  of  course,  not  the  origin  of  the  epithet.14 
The  meaning  of  the  title  seemingly  derived  from  the  name  of  Juno  is, 
however,  obscure.  In  one  case  only,  do  the  two  deities  seem  to  be 
connected  in  cult.  This  is  at  the  Tigillum  Sororum.  This  Tigillum 
was  a  beam  across  a  street,  or  alley,  which  led  from  the  Cannae  to  the 
Cyprium  Angiportum.  It  was  supported  by  the  walls  of  the  houses 
on  each  side  of  the  street.15  The  story  told  of  it  is  that  during  the  war 
with  the  Albans,  there  was  a  battle  between  the  Horatii  and  the 
Curiatii.  One  of  the  Horatii  killed  one  of  the  Curiatii,  to  whom  his 
sister  was  betrothed.  Returning  home  with  the  spoils,  he  met  his  sister 
and  attempted  to  kiss  her.  But  she,  recognizing  the  cloak  of  her 
lover,  warded  off  the  kiss,  and  turned  aside  and  wept.  Her  brother  then 
in  his  anger  killed  her.  Being  condemned  to  death,  he  appealed  to  the 
people  and  was  acquitted.  To  expiate  his  crime,  however,  he,  or  his 
father  for  him,  erected  a  yoke,  under  which  the  youth  was  made  to 
pass.  Beneath  the  yoke  were  put  two  altars,  one  to  Janus  Curiatius, 
the  other  to  Juno  Sororia.™  For  this  reason,  the  beam  was  called 
Tigillum  Sororum.  The  beam  was  held  in  veneration  for  a  long  period. 
Sacrifices  were  performed  at  it  annually.17  It  is  recorded  that  the 
Arval  Brothers  made  an  offering  there  even  as  late  as  the  fourth  cen- 
tury A.  D.18  But  the  real  meaning  of  the  Tigillum  and  of  the  story  con- 
nected with  it,  is  not  at  all  certain.  Roscher  suggested  that  it  was  a  relic 
of  a  very  old  spell  of  creeping  under  wood  to  get  rid  of  witchcraft.19  Dr. 
L.  D.  Barnett's  theory  that  it  was  a  fetish  carries  out  this  idea  a  little 
farther.20  The  conjunction  of  an  altar  to  Juno  and  one  to  Janus  seems 

"Macrob.  1,9,  16. 

12 /.  p.  17  sqq. 

13  Serv.  Aen.  7,  610;  /.  pp.  17-18. 

14Verg.  Aen.  7,  620-621. 

15  Dion,  of  Hal.  3,  22;  Cook,  Class.  Rev.  18,  p.  369;  Platner  pp.  258;  450. 

16  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  3,  14;  Dion,  of  Hal.  3, 15,22;Paulus-Fest.297;  307;  Liv.  1,24-26; 
cf.  Lyd.  Mens.  4,  1;  Platner  Top.  Rom,  pp.  258;  450. 

17  Dion,  of  Hal.  3,  15,  22. 
18C7£.  I,  p.  402,  Oct.  1. 

19  Roscher  Lex.  s.v. 

20  Class.  Rev.   12,  p.  463. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  67 

\ 

to  show  a  connection  between  the  two  deities.  But  their  relationship 
here  is  not  clear.  However,  whatever  other  association  there  was 
between  them,  it  is  at  least  certain  that  both  were  concerned  with 
childbirth,  for  Juno  was  the  protectress  of  women  at  childbirth,  and 
Janus  was  the  man's  special  deity,  a  god  of  generation.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  the  epithet  Junonius  refers  to  this  function.  The  Janus 
of  men,  however,  does  not  correspond  to  the  Juno  of  women,  for  the 
numen  of  a  man  was  a  spirit  with  a  definite  name,  his  Genius;  woman's 
numen  was  Juno,  who,  however,  was  not  limited  to  the  one  function 
as  was  the  numen  Genius. 

Diana 

The  name  of  Diana  still  more  closely  resembles  that  of  Janus. 
Another  form  I  ana  occurs;22  and,  conversely,  of  Janus  there  exists  a 
form  Dianus.23  Whatever  etymology  is  accepted  for  these  words  it 
makes  no  difference  in  determining  the  character  of  the  deities.  If  the 
form  I  anus  is  the  original  one,  and  if  this  is  derived  from  an  extension 
of  the  root  of  eo,  "to  go",24  it  is,  of  course  appropriate  to  the  door-god, 
and  also  to  the  birth-goddess,  who  is  always  associated  with  the  phases 
of  the  wandering  moon.  On  the  other  hand,  a  derivation  from  the  root 
diu,  considered  as  the  foundation  of  the  form  Dianus^  will  suit  the 
character  of  the  deity  equally  well.  Almost  any  god  can  be  considered 
" shining"  or  "godlike."  The  adjective  is  especially  suited  to  Janus, 
since  he  was  the  opening  at  the  door-way,  through  which  came  all  the 
light  into  the  primitive  Italic  house.  If  the  theory  is  accepted  that 
the  same  root  appears  in  Janus,  Jupiter,  Juno,  Dione,  etc.,  it  follows, 
not  that  these  deities  were  identical26  but  that  the  same  general  quality 
was  assumed  in  all  of  them.  To  attempt  a  solution  of  this  vexed  prob- 
lem in  etymology,  however,  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  paper,  especially 
since,  as  has  been  shown,  none  of  the  derivations  advanced  by  different 
scholars  interferes  with  the  theory  herein  presented.  This  Diana, 
whose  name  seems  to  be  the  feminine  form  of  Janus,  was,  according  to 

21  Cf.  Carter,  Religious  Life  of  Ancient  Rome,  p.  11. 

22  Varro  R.  R.  1,  37,  3;  Macrob.  1,  9,  8. 
23C7L.  V,  783. 

24  Cic.  N.  D.  2,  27,  67;  Macrob.  1,  9,  11;  Serv.  Aen.  7,  610;  Walde  s.v. 

™OIL.  V,  783. 

26  Frazer  Led.  on  the  Early  History  of  the  Kingship,  pp.  285  sqq. 


68  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

Professor  Carter,27  the  Diana  of  Aricia  who  had  been  a  close  neighbor 
of  that  incarnate  king,  the  Rex  Nemorensis.28  Many  votive  offerings 
found  at  her  sanctuary  prove  that  she  was  a  goddess  of  birth,  as  well 
as  of  the  woods.  Professor  Carter  thinks,  also,  that  she  came  to  Rome 
when  Aricia  became  head  of  the  Latin  League,  and  that  her  temple  on 
the  Aventine  was  of  importance,  not  to  the  Roman  people,  but  only  to 
the  League,  since  her  office  at  Rome  was  already  filled  by  Juno  Lucina. 
Perhaps  some  of  Diana's  later  popularity  was  due  to  an  identification 
with  the  Greek  Artemis.  At  any  rate,  she  was  certainly  an  important 
goddess  of  birth,  and  side  by  side  with  her,  Juno  retained  her  position 
unimpaired.  This  is  still  another  example  of  the  overlapping  of  the 
functions29  of  deities. 

Mater  Matuta 

Once  in  literature  lanus  is  called  Matutine  Pater,  a  title  which 
might  be  interpreted  as  connecting  him  with  Mater  Matuta,  and  as  so 
making  him  the  god  of  dawn.30  But,  as  has  been  argued  before,  the 
adjective  matutinus  is  used  elsewhere  with  no  more  meaning  than  "in 
the  morning";  and  it  is  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  the  passage  in  which 
it  occurs,  to  take  the  epithet  to  signify  humorously,  "early  rising  Janus, " 
of,  "father  of  early  risers."31  If  this  be  true,  the  title  does  not  prove 
any  religious  connection  between  Janus  and  the  dawn,  or  between  him 
and  Mater  Matuta,  beyond  the  fact  that  both  had  some  association 
with  birth.  There  is,  to  be  sure,  an  inscription  to  Janus  Pater  and 
Mater  Matuta?2  But  this  does  not  argue  any  great  connection  between 
them.  Often  divinities  that  have  little  association  in  cult  are  honored 
by  inscriptions  on  the  same  stone. 

Ops  Consiva 

Still  another  tie  connecting  Janus  with  the  long  list  of  birth-gods, 
is  the  fact  that  as  Janus  Consiwus™  he  has  the  same  title  as  Ops,  who 

27  Carter  Relig.  of  Numa,  pp.  53  sqq. 

28 /.  Chapt.  VII. 

29Hor.  Carm.  Saec. 

80 HOT.  Sat.  2,  6,  20-23;  Bailey  Relig.  of  Am.  Rome,  p.  77;  Wissowa,  p.  109. 

31/.,  pp.  20-21. 

32C/L.  VIII,  S.  11797;  cf.  Wissowa  Relig.  u.  Kult.,  p.  110. 

33Lyd.  Mem.  4,  1;  Macrob.  1,  9,  15;  Tert.  Nat.  2,  11. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  69 

is  sometimes  called  Opeconsiva.34    She  seems  to  have  been  a  goddess 
of  fertility  in  general,  both  of  the  fields,  and  of  the  animal  world. 

Carna 

There  is  a  remarkable  absence  of  myths  concerning  Janus.  This 
is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  this  deity  had  no  Greek  counterpart, 
whose  exploits  could  be  attributed  to  him.  St.  Augustine  makes  this 
scarcity  of  legend  the  subject  of  a  very  good  pun:  An  forte  voluerunt 
ut,  quoniam  plurimi  dii  selecti  erubescenda  perpetrando  amiserant 
frontem,  quanto  iste  innocentior  esset,  tanto  frontosior  appareret?35 

In  spite  of  the  grave  authority  of  St.  Augustine,  however,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  there  were  a  few  myths  about  the  many-faced  god. 
Ovid  tells  one  of  him  and  Carna,  which  may  properly  be  classed  as 
erubescenda™  In  this  narrative,  the  poet  makes  Carna  a  goddess  of 
the  door  hinge,  so  that  he  seems  to  have  confused  Carna  and  Cardea. 
In  spite  of  this  mistake,  it  is  possible  that  Ovid  was  right,  however, 
in  assuming  some  connection  between  Carna  and  Janus.  If  so,  the 
association  was  not  with  the  primary  quality  of  door-god,  but  with 
the  secondary  one  of  birth-god.  For  Carna  was  a  protecting  deity  of 
infants.  The  story  of  the  two  deities  may  have  arisen  through  this 
relation.  The  tale  could  hardly  have  been  well  known,  however,  since 
St.  Augustine,  for  all  his  deep  researches  into  Paganism,  says  that 
Janus  was  free  from  myths  of  this  sort. 

34  Varro  L.  L.  6,  21. 

35  S.  Aug.  C.  D.  7,  4. 

36  Ov.  F.  6,  101  sq. 


CHAPTER  IX 
MISCELLANIES 

Inscriptions 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  no  dedicatory  inscriptions  to  Janus  have 
been  found  in  Italy.1  If  any  had  existed,  it  is  hard  to  believe 
that  all  could  have  been  lost  or  destroyed.  The  inference  is,  therefore, 
that  in  Italy  few,  if  any,  stones  were  inscribed  in  his  honor.  A  few 
have  been  found  in  the  provinces.  Two  come  from  Numidia.2  One 
of  these  is  especially  interesting,  because  of  the  false  declension  of  the 
words:  IANI  PATRO.3  Of  the  others,4  some  are  dedicated  to  Janus 
Pater,  some  have  the  word  Janus  unqualified.  The  poorly  cut  inscrip- 
tion from  Narbonensian  Gaul,  bearing  the  words  IOVI  DIANO,  and 
the  stone  in  honor  of  Janus  and  Mater  Matuta  have  been  mentioned  in 
another  Chapter.5 

Spolia  Opima 

Besides  the  cult  at  the  Janus  Geminus,  it  is  barely  possible  that 
another  ceremony,  that  of  the  spolia  opima  connected  Janus  with  war. 
In  Paulus-Festus  is  the  statement  that  the  third  sort  of  spolia  opima 
was  dedicated  to  Janui  Quirino?  This  is,  however,  the  only  passage 
which  mentions  Janus  as  a  recipient  of  these  trophies.  Plutarch  gives 
the  information  that  there  were  three  kinds  of  spolia  opima:  of  these, 
the  first  was  offered  to  Jupiter,  the  second  to  Mars,  the  third,  to  Quiri- 
nus.  Servius  says  that  Romulus  presented  the  first  kind  to  Jupiter, 
Cossus,  the  second  to  Mars;  and  Marcellus,  the  third  to  Quirinus.  But 
this  Quirinus,  he  identifies  with  Mars.8  It  is  to  be  seen  from  this, 
that  there  is  little  foundation  for  assuming  that  Janus  had  a  share  in 
the  spolia.  In  fact  all  the  evidence  about  the  spolia  opima  is  so  con- 
tradictory that  no  conclusion  about  it  can  be  reached  until  more  infor- 
mation is  brought  to  light. 

1Wissowa  Relig.  u.  Kult.  p.  106. 

*CIL.  VIII,  2608;  4576. 

3C7L.  VIII,  2608. 

<CIL.  Ill,  2881;  2969;  3030;  3158;  5092  a;  VIII,  S.  15577;  16417;  12,  1065. 

«/.  pp.  68-69. 

Test.  189. 

'Plut.  Marcell.  8. 

8  Serv.  Aen.  6,  859. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  71 

Circenses  of  January  Seventh 

An  additional  honor  was  paid  to  Janus  by  the  emperors  in  naming 
the  games  held  in  the  circus  on  January  7  for  him.  The  Calendar  of 
Philocalus  contains  the  only  reference  to  these  games.9  It  has  been 
seen  that  the  revival  of  religion  under  Augustus  caused  Janus,  as  well 
as  some  of  the  other  old  deities,  to  regain  some  of  his  former  importance 
in  state  ritual.10  The  fact  that  his  name  led  the  list  of  gods,  and  that 
the  frequent  intervals  of  peace  made  it  possible  to  close  the  gates  of  his 
arch  perhaps  contributed  to  make  him  more  prominent  in  the  thought 
of  the  people  than  he  had  been  for  several  generations.  It  was  natural 
therefore,  that  when  the  emperors  established  new  games  to  take  place 
on  January  7,  they  should  have  named  them  for  Janus.  Mommsen 
thinks  that  the  games  were  thus  named  because  they  were  the  first  of 
the  year,  and  were  consequently  dedicated  to  the  god  of  beginnings.11 
However,  as  in  other  instances,  nothing  is  said  in  the  Calendar  about 
Janus  in  this  capacity.  It  seems  more  probable,  on  the  contrary,  that 
the  games  were  dedicated  to  Janus,  because  they  came  in  his  month. 

9  CIL.  I,  p.  334;  pp.  382-383. 

10 /.pp.  27-28. 

11  Mommsen's  note  in  CIL.  I,  pp.  382-383. 


CONCLUSION 

In  conclusion  the  development  of  Janus  may  be  summarized  briefly 
as  follows:  Janus  originated  as  a  simple  numen  of  the  doorway.  He 
developed  into  a  god  of  generation,  of  war,  and  of  commerce.  He  was 
not  a  god  of  beginnings;  and  had  no  place  in  the  ceremonies  of  the  Ka- 
lends or  of  New  Year's  Day.  He  had  neither  festival  nor  priest.  Be- 
fore the  dawn  of  literature,  at  Rome,  other  deities  had  usurped  most 
of  the  powers  he  had  possessed.  He  was  obscured  by  the  showiness  of 
the  Greek  and  other  foreign  gods,  more  than  all  else  by  the  worship 
of  Jupiter,  while  the  simplicity  of  his  worship  prevented  it  from  being 
incorporated  in  the  more  elaborate  state  ceremonies.  In  spite  of  this, 
however,  he  held  a  place  in  religion  to  the  end  of  Paganism,  because  he 
had,  in  the  formative  period  of  the  ritual,  gained  the  foremost  position 
in  all  prayers  and  formulas,  a  position  from  which  he  could  not  be  dis- 
lodged. 

He  retained  one  cult  of  his  own.  No  war  could  be  begun  properly 
until  the  gates  of  his  arch  were  thrown  open.  Under  the  emperors  he 
enjoyed  a  slight  revival.  This  resuscitation,  however,  was  little  more 
than  literary:  the  only  result  in  worship  was  that  one  of  the  celebrations 
in  the  circus  was  named  for  him.  So  little  impression  did  this  honor 
make,  however,  that  no  reference  is  made  to  it,  outside  the  calendar 
of  events. 

Finally,  because  of  his  unique  position  hi  all  rituals  and  because  of 
the  material  prominence  of  his  arch  in  the  Forum,  and  partly,  perhaps, 
on  account  of  the  mystery  surrounding  his  origin  and  real  character, 
he  appealed  strongly  to  the  imagination  of  the  poets  and  writers  of 
classical  and  succeeding  times.  Through  their  writings  he  gained  the 
position  of  god  of  beginnings,  of  the  sky,  and  even  of  creator  of  the 
world.  These  concepts  have  had  most  influence  on  the  opinions  of 
modern  scholars,  but  they  do  not  belong  to  the  true  character  of  the 
god,  Janus. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

(References  in  the  footnotes  are  so  cited  as  to  be  clear  in  themselves,  without 
the  help  of  a  key.     This  thesis  is  referred  to  as  /.) 
Allen,  Grant,  The  Evolution  of  the  Idea  of  God;  an  Inquiry  into  the  Origins  of  Religion. 

London,  1897. 
Appel,  G.  De  Romanorum  Precationibus,  in  Religions gesch.  Versuche  u.  Vorarb.  VII, 

2.   Geissen,   1909. 

Aust,  Emil,  Die  Religion  der  Romer.    Mimster,   1899. 

Axtell,  Harold  L.    The  Deification  of  Abstract  Ideas  in  Roman  Literature  and  Inscrip- 
tions.    Chicago,    1907. 

Bailey,  Cyril,  The  Religion  of  Ancient  Rome.     London,  1907. 
Barnett,  L.  D.  Review  of  J.   B.   Carter's  De  Deorum  Romanorum  Cognominibus 
Quaestiones  Selectae,  in  Classical  Review,  XII,  463  sq.     London,  1898. 
Boethke,  K.   Uber  das  Wesen  des  Janus.    Thorn,   1863. 
Boissier,  Gaston,  la  Religion  romaine  d'Auguste  aux  Antonins.    Paris,  1874. 
Bouche-Leclercq  Les   pontifes   de  Vane.  Rome.     Paris,    1871. 
Breal,  Michel  Melanges  de  Mythologie  et  de  Linguistique.     Paris,   1877. 
Carter,  J.  B.  De  .Deorum  Romanorum  Cognominibus  Quaestiones  Selectae.     Leipzig, 

1898. 
Die  Etrusker  u.  die  romische  Religion,  in  Milteilungen  des  kais.  deut. 

archaolog.  Institute,  Rom.  Abteilung.     1910. 
The  Religion  of  Numa.    London,  1906. 
The  Religious  Life  of  Ancient  Rome.    Boston,  1911. 

Cook,  Arthur  Bernard,  Zeus,  Jupiter,  and  the  Oak,  in  Classical  Review  XVII,  pp. 
174  sqq.,  268  sqq.,  403  sqq.;  1903;  XVIII,  pp.  75  sqq.,  325 
sqq.,  360  sqq.,   1904.     London. 
Cumont,   Franz,  Un  Livre  nouveau  sur  la  liturgie  pa'ienne,  in  Revue  de  I 'instruction 

Publique  en  Belgique  XL VII,  1,  pp.  1-10.     Brussels,  1904. 
Deecke,  Wilhelm  Etruskische  Forschungen  u.  Studien. 

Deubner,   L.  Personifikationen  abstrakter  Begriffe,  in  W.  H.  Roscher's  Lexikon,  d. 

griech.  u.  romisch.  Mythologie,   pp.  2067    sqq.     Leipzig,    1902-1909. 

Domaszewski,  Alfred,  Dei  Certi  und  Dei  Incerti,  in  Archiv  fur  Religionswissenschaft 

X,   1,  pp.   1-10.    Leipzig   1907. 

Fairley,  William,  Monumentum  Ancyranum,  in  Translations  and  Reprints  from  the 

Original  Sources  of  European  History,  Published  by  the  Department 

of  History  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.     Philadelphia,  1898. 

Fowler,  W.  Warde,  Jupiter  and  the  Triumphator,  in  Classical  Review  XXX,  Nos.  5 

&  6.    London,  1916. 

The  Religious  Experience  of  the  Roman  People.    London,  1911. 
The  Roman  Festivals  of  the  Period  of  the  Republic.    London,  1899 
Frazer,  James  G.  The  Golden  Bough.    London,  1911. 

Lectures  on  the  Early  History  of  the  Kingship.    London,  1905. 
Gross,  Otto,  De  Metonymiis  Sermonis  Latini  a  Deorum  Nominibus  Petitis,  in  Dis- 
serlationes  Philologicae  Hattenses  XIX,  pp.   297   sqq.    Halle,    1911. 


74  JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT 

Gruppe,  O.  Berichl  uber  die  LUteratur  zur  antiken  Mythologie  und  Religions geschichte 
aus  den  Jahren  1893-1897,  in  Jahresbericht  uber  Altertumswissenschaft, 
Bd.  102.  Leipzig,  1900. 

Hartung,  J.  A.  Die  Religion  der  Rb'mer.    Erlangen,    1836. 
Hempel,  Geo.   The  Salian  Hymn  to  Janus,  in  Transactions  and  Proceedings  of  the 

American  Philological  Association  XXXI,  pp.  182  sqq.  1900. 
Henzen,  W.  Acta  Fratrum  Arvalium  Quae  Super  sunt.     Berlin,  1874. 
Jevons,  F.  B.   The  Idea  of  God  in  Early  Religions.     Cambridge,  1910. 

Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Comparative  Religion.    New  York,  1912. 
Comparative   Religion;  a   Survey    of  its   Recent   Literature.    Edin- 
burgh, 1910. 
Tullian,  Camille,  La  relig.  rom.  deux,  siecles  avant  notre  ere,  in  Melanges  De  Rossi, 

pp.  311-342. 

Lang,  Andrew,    The  Making  of  Religion.    London,  1900. 
The  Origins  of  Religion.    London,   1908. 
Linde,  S.  De  lano  Summo  Romanorum  Deo,  Lund,   1891. 
Maass,  E.  W.  T.  Die  Tagesgotter  in  Rom  und  den  Provinzen.     Berlin,  1902. 
Marchi  De,  Attilio,  77  Culto  Privato  di  Roma  Antica.    Milan,  1896. 
Marquardt,  Joachim,  Romische  Staalsverwaltung.    Leipzig,   1878. 
Maurenbrecher,  B.   Carminum  Saliarium  Reliquiae,  in  Philol.  Jahrb.  Suppl.  XXI,  pp. 

315-353,  1894. 
May,  G.   Le  Flamen  Dialis  et  la  Virgo  Veslalis.    Etudes  de  Droit  Religieux,  in  Revue 

des  Etudes  Anciennes,  I,  pp.  3-16,  1905. 
Mommsen,  Th.  Romisches  Slaalsrecht.    Leipzig,  1877. 
Miiller,   Fried.  Max,   Anthropological  Religion.    London,    1892. 

Einleitung  in  die  vergleichende  Religionswissenschaftz.     Strass- 
burg,  1876. 

Natural  Religion.    London,  1889. 
Physical  Religion.    London,  1890. 
Nissen,  Heinrich,  Das  Templum.    Berlin,  1869. 

Orientation,  Studien  zur  Geschichte  der  Religion,  2  Heft,  p.  28.  1906. 
Overbeck,  J.  A.  Griechische  Kunstmythologie.    Leipzig,  1871-1889. 
Preller,  L.  Romische  Mythologie.    Berlin,  1858. 
Preller-Jordan,     Romische  Mythologie3.    Berlin,  1881. 
Reinach,  S.  Cultes,  Mythes  et  Religions.    Paris,  1908. 

Roscher,  W.  H.  Ausfiihrliches  Lexikon  der  griechischen    u.    romischen    Mythologie, 
Suppl.  E.  H.  Berger  Mythische  Kosmographle  der  Griechen,  Lex. 
8.    Leipzig,  1904. 
Roscher,  W.  H.  Studien  zur  vergleichenden  Mythologie  der  Griechen    und    Rb'mer. 

Leipzig,  1873-1875. 

Samter,  Ernst,  Familienfeste  der  Griechen  und  Romer.     Berlin,  1901. 
Saussaye,  De  la,  Chantepie  P.  D.    Lehrbuch  der  Religions geschichle,  in  Sammlung 
Theolog.    Lehrbucher.    Lubingen,  1905. 


JANUS  IN  ROMAN  LIFE  AND  CULT  75 

Schulze,  Wilhelm  Zur  Geschichte  lateinischer  Eigennamen.    Berlin,   1904. 

Siecke,  Ernst,  Cotter  attribute  und  sogenannte  Symbole.    Jena,   1909. 

Speyer,  J.  S.   Le  dieu  romain  Janus,  in  Revue  de  Vhistoire  des  religions  XXVI,  pp. 

1  sqq.    Paris,  1892. 
Usener,  H.   G'dtternamen.     Versuch  einer  Lehre  von    der    religib'sen  Begrijfsbildung. 

Bonn,  1896. 

Strena  Helbigiana.    Leipzig,  1900. 
Vortrdge  und  Aufsdtze.    Leipzig,  1907. 

Walde,  Alois,  Lateinisches  etymologisches  Worterbuch.    Heidelberg,  1910. 
Wissowa,    Georg,  Gesammelte   Abhandlungen   zur   rb'mischen   Religions-  und   Slaat- 

geschichte.    Miinchen,  1904. 

Pauly-Wissowa  Real-Encyklopddie.    Stuttgart,  1894— 
Religion  und  Kultus  der  Romer.    Munich,  1912. 
Zielinski,  Th.  Genius  und  Juno,  in  Philologus,  Neue  Folge  XVIII,  1,  pp.  20-21. 

Rom  und  Seine  Gottheit,  in  Beilage  zur  miinchner  allergemeinen  Zeit- 

ung,  1903,  N.  37-39. 
Zimmermann,  Aug.  Zur  Etymologie  des  Namens  Juno,  in  Wochenschrift  fur  Klass. 

PhiloL  XXII,  990  sqq. 
Zimmermann,  Daniel,  Das  Wesen  des  Janus.    Erlangen,  1852. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(415)642-6233 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


NOV9    1987 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


